Oivls.on..,i3y^H 
Section »  D.5~  ^*^ 

No 


,/ 

THE      BAPTISMAL      QUESTION 


DISCUSSION 


BAPTISMAL    QUESTION 


CONSISTING    OF 

1.  HINTS  TO   AN   INQUIRER   ON    THE   SUBJECT-  OF   BAP- 

TISM.    By  Rev.  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towse. 
II.  REVIEW  OF  THE  "  HINTS."    By  Rev.  William  Hague. 
HI.  REJOINDER  TO   THE    REVIEW.    By    Rev.  Messrs.  Cooke 

AND  ToWNE. 

IV.  EXAMINATION  OF   THE   REJOINDER.    By  Rev.   William 
Hague. 


BOSTON : 

GOULD,    KENDALL    &    LINCOLM 

5 9    Wa shington    Street. 

1842. 


rUELISKERS'  i\OTICE. 


Towards  the  close  of  last  May,  Rev.  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne 
published  a  pamphlet,  entitled,  "Hints  to  an  Inquirer,  on  the  subject 
of  Baptism,"  in  which  the  views  and  practices  of  the  Baptists  were 
so  treated,  that  some  reply,  on  the  part  of  the  denomination,  seemed 
to  be  called  for.  On  application  to  Mr.  Hague,  he  immediately  pre- 
pared a  Review  of  that  work,  and  this  called  forth  a  Rejoinder,  from 
Messrs  Cooke  and  Towne,  which  was  published  in  one  small  vol- 
ume ; — first  their  "  Hints,"  in  a  fair,  legible  type  ;  next  IMr.  Hague's 
Review,  in  type  so  fine  and  dim,  that  very  few  persons  could  read  it 
without  endangering  their  eyes  ;  and  then  their  Rejoinder  to  the  Re- 
view, in  type  laige  and  clear.  Thus,  while  in  their  advertisement 
there  was  an  appearance  of  candor,  in  publishing  both  sides,  there 
was,  in  reality,  a  want  of  candor  and  fairness,  in  so  publishing  the 
Review,  that  very  few  could  do  it  justice  in  the  perusal. 

In  the  "  JVote.  "  to  Cooke  and  Towne's  Rejoinder,  it  is  said,  "We 
learn  that  complaint  has  been  made  of  our  printing  the  whole  of  Mr. 
Hague's  pamphlet  with  ours.  His  publishers,  in  putting  it  forth 
without  securing  the  copyright,  as  they  might  have  done  for  a  trifle, 
virtually  gave  it  to  the  public,  and  have  no  legal  or  moral  right,  and 
no  right  on  the  score  of  courtesy,  to  complain  of  any  one  for  publish- 
ing it." 

Allowing  that  while  omitting  to  take  out  a  copyright  (as  is  usual, 
in  publishing  a  small  pamphlet),  we  forfeited  our  claim  of  "legal 
right,"  we  are  unable  to  see  that  it  can  affect  our  "  moral  right,"  or 
annul  all  claim  of  "courtesy  !"  They  were  distinctly  informed,  that 
we  objected  to  their  publishing  our  work  in  the  way  they  did.  There 
is  a  "law  of  trade,"  in  reference  to  republishing  foreign  works,  not 
entitled  to  a  copyright  in  this  country,  that  he  who  first  obtains  a 
complete  copy,  secures  to  himself  the  right  of  publishing  ;  and  in  so 


IV  PUBLISHERS        NOTICE. 

high  regard  is  this  law  of  honor  and  courtesy  held,  that  in  some  few 
instances,  where  it  has  been  violated,  the  course  has  been  condemned, 
on  the  part  of  the  •'  trade,"  by  a  refusal  to  purchase  or  sell  copies  of 
the  edition  thus  published.  How,  then,  must  our  surprise  have  been 
excited,  to  find  this  law  of  honor,  and  regard  to  moral  right,  so  strictly 
adhered  to  by  men  of  the  world,  unheeded  by  those  who  profess  to  be 
governed  by  the  pure  principles  of  the  gospel  ! 

It  has  been  our  wish,  in  issuing  the  «♦  Examination  of  the  Rejoin- 
der," by  Mr.  Hague,  to  publish  both  sides  fully — to  put  forth  the 
whole  discussion  in  one  volume.  But  the  copyright  of  the  «'  Hints  " 
and  «<  Rejoinder  "  having  been  secured  to  the  publishers,  we  have 
not  been  permitted  to  piit  these  works  in  our  own  type,  so  as  to  have 
the  numbers  of  the  pages  to  succeed  each  other  in  regular  order,  as 
would  have  been  desirable.  We  have,  however,  purchased  the  right 
of  printing  from  the  stereotype  plates  of  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne's 
productions,  and  bound  them  up  with  our  own  publications;  although, 
to  accomplish  our  object,  we  have  been  forced  to  adopt  type  unlike 
our  own,  and  to  leave  the  paging  without  arrangement,  which  would 
give  the  whole  an  appearance  of  unity. 

JYevertheless,  the  public  will  see  that  we  have  done  all  that  we 
could,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  to  present  to  view  the 
whole  discussion  in  a  form  which  shall  be  easy  of  perusal,  and  con- 
venient for  the  sake  of  reference.  As  we  have  not  cared  to  secure 
for  ourselves  pecuniary  profit,  we  may  ask  with  the  more  confidence, 
that  the  whole  may  be  read  with  a  candid  mind,  *'  an  applying  con- 
science, and  a  retentive  memory." 

For  the  benefit  of  such  as  are  already  in  possession  of  the  previous 

works,  and  may   feel   indisposed   to  purchase  the   same   again,   Mr. 

Hague's  Examination  of  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne's  Rejoinder  hag 

been  republished  in  a  separate  form,  and  may  be  had  at  a  reduced 

price. 

THE  PUBLISHERS. 

Boston,  December,  1842. 


HINTS 


AN     INQUIRER 


ON  THE    SUBJECT   OF  BAPTISM. 


FIRST    PUBLISHED     IN     THE     NEW    ENGLAND    PURITAN. 


PARSONS  COOKE  AND  JOSEPH  H.  TOWNE. 


BOSTON: 


x'UBLISHED   BY    WASHINGTON    CLAPP, 

AT    THE    OFFICE    OF    THE    NEW   ENGLAND   PURITAN. 

1842. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1842, 

By  Washington  Clapp, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Massachusetts. 


STEREOTYPED    BY 

GEORGE    A.    CURTIS, 

K.  ENGLAND  TYPE  AND  STEREOTYPE  FOUNDRY, 


I 


HINTS   TO   AN   INQUIRER. 


INTRODUCTION 


Those  who  practise  immersion  assume  the  position,  that 
thev  may  lawfully  debar  from  the  Lord's  table  all  who  ad- 
minister baptism  in  other  ways.  This  gives  the  question 
before  us  an  importance  which  otherwise  would  not  belong  to 
it.  If  the  exclusive  principle  advocated  by  this  body  of  Chris- 
tians is  defensible  on  scriptural  grounds,  the  greater  part  of 
Christ's  professed  disciples  are  intruders  at  his  table.  But 
if,  on  the  other  hand,  Immersers  are  wrong,  they  are  guilty 
of  exercising  an  usurped  authority  in  the  house  of  God,  and 
of  withholding  the  children's  bread. 

The  honest  inquirer  on  this  subject,  therefore,  in  settling 
the  question,  whether  he  shall  be  immersed  and  unite  with 
Immersers,  must,  at  the  same  time,  settle  the  question  as  to 
close  communion.  He  cannot  join  them  in  church  fellowship, 
without  giving  his  sanction  to  their  exclusive  principle.  This 
fact  he  should  take  along  with  him,  through  the  whole  argu- 
ment, and  put  every  suggestion  in  favor  of  immersion  to  the 
test  of  the  inquiry — 7s  this  sure  and  satisfactory  ground  on. 
which  to  base  close  communion  ? 

As  to  the  use  of  names,  we  must  be  excused  from  using  the 
term  "  Baptists,"  for  those  who  practise  immersion.  The 
application  to  them  of  this  name,  is  equivalent  to  a  concession, 
that  we  do  not  baptize.     And  there  is  a  kind  of  charm  attached 


4  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

to  the  name,  carrying-  with  it  an  impression,  injurious  to  the 
force  of  opposite  arguments.  The  influence  of  a  name  on  this 
subject,  has  an  illustration  of  this  kind.  A  Campbellite,  hold- 
ing forth  to  an  uncultivated  audience  at  the  west,  in  favor  of 
immersion,  broke  forth  in  the  following  eloquent  appeal : — 
"  Was  it  John  the  Methodist?  No.  Was  it  John  the  Epis- 
copalian? No.  Was  it  John  the  Presbyterian?  No.  It 
was  John  the  Baptist.  ^^  And  this  was  doubtless  the  end  of  all 
strife,  for  those  who  could  be  convinced  by  the  sound  of  a 
name.  But  the  sound  of  a  name  has  its  influence  more  or  less 
with  all ;  and  it  is  not  fit  that  in  this  respect,  an  advantage 
should  be  conceded  to  either  side.  For  any  sect  to  claim  the 
exclusive  use  of  the  term  Baptists,  is  no  more  equitable  than 
that  they  should  claim  an  exclusive  use  of  the  name  believers  ; 
in  a  way  to  imply  that  no  others  believe  in  Christ  but  them- 
selves. But  if  they  choose  thus  to  beg  the  question,  it  is  not 
wise  in  us  to  concede  it.  We  take  the  liberty,  therefore,  so 
far  as  we  have  occasion  to  apply  a  name  in  these  remarks,  to 
use  the  term  Immersers  instead  of  Baptists — a  term  which 
need  not  be  offensive  to  them,  as  it  has  no  invidious  intent  with 
us.  We  are  aware  that  immersion,  unscriptural  as  we  con- 
ceive it  to  be,  is  associated  with  the  purest  feelings  of  many 
devout  disciples  of  our  blessed  Lord ;  and  far  be  it  from  us  to 
trifle  with  such  feelings.  But  the  cause  of  truth  requires  it 
of  all  Pedobaptists,  that  they  take  special  pains  to  break  the 
force  of  a  habit;  and  discard,  entirely,  the  use  of  a  term  so 
injurious  to  themselves.  And,  furthermore,  it  is  the  duty  of 
Immersers,  themselves,  to  discard  its  exclusive  use,  and  that 
for  the  sake  of  consistency.  In  their  new  translation  of  the 
Bible,  they  have  substituted  immerse,  for  baptize,  under  the 
idea  that  baptize  is  not  a  fit  and  proper  word  to  express  the 
thing,  and  thus  have  virtually  expunged  baptism  from  the  Bi- 
ble. And  now  it  is  passing  strange,  if  they,  who  are  taking 
measures  to  deprive  the  Christian  world  of  the  very  name  of 
baptism,  should  assume  the  monopoly  of  that  name,  and  style 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  5 

themselves  the  only  Baptists.  Surely,  after  having  blotted 
the  vrord  from  the  Bible,  they  will  not  deem  it  fit  to  retain  it 
as  the  name  of  their  sect.  Though  the  sect  in  its  infancy, 
was  baptized  by  this  name,  yet  now,  having  attained  to  ma- 
turer  knowledge,  and  discovered  that  baptize  does  not  express 
the  true  idea,  they  may  be  expected  to  secure  a  change  of 
name,  and  conform  to  their  riper  knowledge. 

We  wish  the  inquirer  to  mark  in  the  outset  that  the  nice 
and  punctilious  regard  to  the  forms  of  outward  rites,  so  much 
insisted  upon  in  the  Mosaic  ritual,  is  not  required  of  us.  A 
divine  simplicity  characterizes  the  New  Testament  institutions. 
It  is  contrary  to  the  genius  of  the  gospel  to  lay  great  stress  on 
outward  rites.  It  rather  invites  the  main  solicitudes  upon 
ordering  the  heart  and  life.  The  kingdom  of  God  consisteth 
not  in  meats  and  drinks,  but  in  righteousness,  and  peace,  and 
joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  Neither  circumcision  availeth  any- 
thing nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature. 

And  much  less  does  the  gospel  lay  a  stress  on  the  mode 
of  performing  an  external  rite,  and  require  the  conscience  to 
be  burdened  with  the  inquiry,  whether  it  shall  be  done  in  this 
way  or  that.  It  has  instituted  two  rites,  as  simple  as  it  was 
possible  to  make  them,  and  says  nothing  about  a  danger  to  be 
incurred,  by  failing  to  perform  the  simple  ceremonies,  precise- 
ly after  a  particular  way. 

Let  the  inquirer  take  notice,  that  Immersers  assume  more 
responsibility  than  xoe  do,  and  have  more  to  prove.  Their  prin- 
ciples of  close  communion  lay  them  under  obligations  to  show 
to  an  absolute  certainty,  that  inspiration  fixes  that  their  way, 
and  no  other  way,  of  applying  water  is  baptism.  On  the  other 
hand,  we  need  only  show  that  there  is  no  such  certainty 
and  we  gain  the  question  in  dispute.  For  what  intelligent 
and  candid  mind  could  ever  feel  justified  in  basing  close  com- 
munion upon  an  external  ceremony  of  doubtful  obligation? 
We  expect,  however,  to  show  more  than  this.  While  we 
hold  that  the  New  Testament  insists  upon  no  particular  way 
1* 


6  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER, 

of  applying  the  water  as  essential,  we  contend  that  it  favors 
sprinkling  or  pouring ;  and  that  of  all  the  conceivable  forms 
of  baptism,  immersion  is  the  most  unnatural  and  improbable, 
and  the  farthest  from  the  true  design  of  the  rite. 


CHAPTER    I. 

MEANING    OF    THE    WORD    BAPTIZE. 

The  argument  for  immersion  is  founded  upon  the  assump- 
tion, that  the  words  baptism  and  immersion  convey  the  same 
idea.  But  this  is  a  gross  mistake.  Baptism  expresses  the 
whole  idea  of  the  rite,  including  the  invoking  of  the  Trinity, 
the  receiving  of  the  candidate's  implied  profession  of  faith,  the 
application  of  the  water,  and  the  like.  Immersion  expresses 
only  a  fraction  of  this  idea.  The  Baptizer's  Letter  furnishes  us 
with  an  apt  illustration.  "  If  I  fall  from  a  ship's  side  and  am 
thoroughly  immersed — is  that  baptism?  No.  Or  if  men 
immerse  me  by  force — is  that  baptism?  No.  Or  if  I  am 
immersed  with  my  own  consent,  but  not  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity — is  that  baptism?  No.  Well,  then,  neither  immer- 
sion, nor  the  use  of  water  in  any  way  is  baptism  ;  which  is 
SOMETHING  MORE."  This  is  Sufficient  to  show  that  baptism 
and  immersion  are  not  synonymous  terms. 

But  it  is  said  that  the  Greek  words  bapto  and  baptize  (both  of 
ihe  same  origin,  and  so  nearly  identical  in  meaning  as  to  allow 
of  our  speaking  of  them  as  one  word)  decide  the  controversy. 
We  should  expect  confident  assertions  in  regard  to  these 
words  ;  for  if  they  fail,  a  very  material  part  of  the  Immerser's 
argument  vanishes.  Now  we  affirm  that  these  words  deter- 
mine nothing  in  this  controversy,  unless  they  have  a  fixed 
and  invariable  meaning,  allowing  water  to  be  applied  only  in 
one  way.  If,  on  investigation,  it  be  found  that  these  words  so 
much  relied  on,  have  different  senses ;  if  in  one  connection 
they  mean  to  plunge,  and  in  another  to  wash,  and  in  another 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  7 

to  tinge  or  color,  and  in  another  to  sprinkle,  the  mere  general 
command  to  baptize  does  not  tell  us  how  the  water  shall  be 
used. 

The  question,  then,  before  us  is — have  these  words  a  fixed 
and  invariable  meaning  ?  Even  if  we  were  to  allow  (as  we 
do  not)  that  to  immerse  is  the  prim.ary  signification  of  these 
terms,  it  would  not  fix  us  to  that  way  of  applying  water. 
Words  very  often  lose  their  primary  meaning.  Instance  the 
English  word  villain,  primarily  a  servant;  the  word  clerk, 
primarily  a  clergyman.  Examples  without  number  might  be 
adduced,  wherein  the  primary  meaning  is  wholly  superseded. 
And  then  many  words  which  retain  their  primary  meaning 
have  also  secondary  meanings.  The  English  noun,  general, 
means  the  whole  or  totality,  and  then  secondarily,  a  military 
officer.  The  word  meal  is  primarily  used  of  the  flour  of  corn, 
and  then  of  a  repast.  The  word  dowry,  primarily  means  a 
price  paid  for  a  wife  ;  and  secondarily  almost  the  opposite, 
that  is,  a  portion  received  with  a  wife  ;  and  so  of  many  others. 

Again  :  ivhen  words  go  abroad  and  come  into  a  foreign  lan- 
guage^ they  often  change  their  meaning.  Hence,  if  it  could 
be  shown  that  the  Greeks  used  the  word  for  immersion,  and 
nothing  else,  it  would  not  follow  that  the  Jews,  having  adopted 
it  as  a  foreign  word,  retained  the  same  sense  ;  nor  that  it  bears 
such  a  meaning  in  the  New  Testament,  as  Greek  writers 
give  it.  These  suggestions  are  sufiicient  *to  raise  at  least  the 
suspicion,  that  it  is  hazardous  to  rest  close  communion  upon 
the  assumption,  that  the  word  baptize  necessarily  carries  the 
force  of  immersion. 

The  inquirer  is  now  prepared  to  come  nearer  to  the  point, 
and  see  how  these  words  are  actually  used.  We  will  begin 
with  uninspired  writers.  Callimachus  and  his  commentators 
use  bapto,  to  denote  drawing  up,  &c.  "  To-day  ye  bearers 
of  water  draw  up  [baptize]  none."  Hippocrates,  speaking  of 
a  certain  liquid,  says,  "  When  it  drops  upon  the  garments  they 
are  dyed"  [baptized.]     Observe,  the  dropping  of  the  liquid  is 


8  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

called  baptism,  -^sehylus  says,  "This  garment,  stained 
[baptized]  by  the  sword  of  j:Egisth»^s,  is  a  witness  unto  me." 
Here  the  flowing-  of  blood  upon  a  garment  is  called  baptism. 
Homer,  in  his  battle  of  the  frogs  and  mice,  says,  "  He  fell  and 
breathed  no  more,  and  the  lake  was  tinged  [baptized]  with  the 
purple  blood."  Was  the  lake  immersed  in  the  blood  of  a 
MOUSE  ?  Aristophanes  says,  that  Magnes,  an  old  comic  poet 
of  Athens,  used  the  Lydian  music,  and  shaved  his  face,  smear- 
ing [baptizing]  it  with  tawny  brushes."  Here  the  lathering 
of  his  face,  as  when  one  shaves  himself,  is  called  baptizing. 
Aristotle  speaks  of  a  substance  which  being  pressed,  stains, 
[baptizes]  the  hand.  When  a  man  takes  a  sponge  in  his  hand, 
and  presses  it,  the  water  runs  upon  it ;  but  the  hand  is  not 
immersed.  yElian  speaking  of  an  old  coxcomb,  says,  "He 
endeavored  to  conceal  the  hoariness  of  his  hair,  by  coloring 
[baptizing]  it."  Another  example  :  "You  color  [baptize]  your 
head,  but  you  can  never  color  [baptize]  old  age."  Aristo- 
phanes speaks  of  a  "speckled  [baptized]  bird,"  as  if  we  should 
call  a  Guinea  hen  a  baptized  hen.  Marcus  Antonius  says, 
"The  soul  is  tinctured  [baptized]  by  the  thought." 

The  Sybilline  verse,  concerning  the  city  of  Athens,  is  as 
follows,  "  Thou  mayest  be  baptized,  O  bladder,  but  it  is 

NOT  PERMITTED  TO  THEE  TO  GO  UNDER  THE  WATER."   Here 

we  have  Athens  compared  to  a  leathern  bottle,  or  bladder, 
cast  upon  the  agitated  waters,  but  in  spite  of  the  agitation  not 
immersed.  This  floating  upon  the  water  is  called  baptism. 
Aristophanes  speaks  of  himself  as  having  been  baptized  with 
wine.  Here  is  no  immersion  ;  the  wine  was  poured  into  him  ; 
and  not  he  plunged  into  the  wine.  Josephus,  speaking  of  puri- 
fication from  defilement  by  a  dead  body,  says,  "  Having  bap- 
tized some  of  the  ashes,  with  spring  water  they  sprinkled, "&c. 
Numbers  xix.  17,  informs  us  how  this  was  done.  "  Thou  shalt 
take  of  the  ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer,  and  running  water  shall 
be  put  thereto  in  a  vessel,  and  a  clean  person  shall  sprinkle  it." 
J^ow  observe,  the  command  is  not  to  put  the  ashes  into  the 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  9 

water,  but  the  water  to  the  ashes.  This  mode  of  applying 
water  is  called  baptism  by  Josephus. 

Next  we  will  show  how  the  word  is  used  by  Old  Testament 
and  Apocryphal  writers.  Ecclesiasticus  xxxiv.  30 — "He  that 
is  baptized  from  the  touch  of  a  dead  body,  and  again  toucheth 
it,  what  is  he  profited  by  his  washing  ?"  Now  the  process  of 
purifying  from  this  defilement  was  by  sprinkling,  by  washing 
the  clothes  ;  and  this  is  called  baptism.  In  Judith  xii.  7 — 
she  is  said  to  have  gone  out  in  the  night,  and  baptized  herself 
in  the  camp,  at  [not  in]  the  fountain  of  water.  This  of  course 
was  not  immersion.  Ezekiel  xxiii.  15 — "  Exceeding  in  dyed 
[baptized]  attire."  Daniel  v.  21 — "  His  body  was  wet  [bap- 
tized] with  the  dew  of  heaven,"  It  must  have  been  a  heavy 
dew,  to  have  allowed  of  immersion  ! 

Next  follow  examples //-om  the  Neio  Testament.  Paul  says 
the  Israelites  were  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in 
the  sea — 1  Cor.  x.  2.  How  baptized?  In  Exodus  xiv.  22, 
we  are  inform-ed  that  they  went  over  on  dry  ground.  But  in 
what  sense  can  men  be  said  to  be  immersed,  while  walking  on 
dry  ground  !  That  they  were  not  immersed  is  clear.  How, 
then,  were  they  baptized?  One  of  the  prophets,  alluding  to 
this,  says — "And  the  clouds  poured  out  water."  The  drop- 
pings from  the  cloud  as  they  were  passing,  was  their  baptism, 
and  the  only  way  in  which  they  were  wet  at  all.  In  Heb. 
ix.  10,  Paul  calls  the  different  ceremonial  washings  done  in 
the  tabernacle  service,  baptisms.  Among  them  all  there  is 
not  an  instance  of  immersion  by  the  priests.  In  all  cases 
when  the  subjects  bathed,  there  was  no  official  administration. 
For  these  baptisms,  see  Lev.  viii.  6,  and  Numb.  viii.  7,  Lev. 
xiv.  7,  Numb.  xix.   13,  17,  18,  &c. 

Mark  vii.  3 — "  For  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews,  except 
they  wash  [baptize]  their  hands,  they  eat  not,  and  when  they 
come  from  the  market,  except  they  wash  [baptize]  they  eat 
not."  Here  merely  washing  the  hands  is  called  baptism,  and 
that  was  usually  done  by  pouring  water  upon  the  hands. 


10  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

Mark  vii.  4 — "And  many  other  things  there  be  which  they 
have  received  to  hold,  as  the  washing  [baptism]  of  cups,  pots, 
brazen  vessels,  and  couches. ' '  These  couches  were  long  seats, 
or  beds,  on  which  they  reclined ;  and  it  would  be  extraordi- 
nary if  they  immersed  their  beds!  Luke  xi.  38 — "And 
when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  marvelled  that  he  had  not 
washed  [baptized]  before  dinner."  Acts  i.  5,  &c. — "Baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghost."  One  is  not  immersed  in  the  Holy 
Ghost,  but  it  is  poured,  out  upon  him. 

You  see,  then,  in  what  different  senses  the  words  are  used, 
both  by  Greek  and  Jewish  writers,  ivhen  not  applied  to  a  re- 
ligious rite.  What  is  the  conclusion  ?  Ncccssarihj  that  these 
words  have  not  a  fixed  and  invariable  meaning — that  they  do 
not  of  themselves  determine  any  one  particular  way  of  apply- 
ing a  liquid.  They  are  found  to  be  as  indeterminate  as  our 
word  loash.  When  one  informs  us  that  he  has  washed,  we 
suppose  that  he  has  made  use  of  water  in  some  way,  but  can- 
not tell,  from  the  word  employed,  in  what  way.  Men  wash 
themselves  in  divers  ways.  From  this  investigation  of  the 
words,  it  begins  to  look  as  if  the  apostle  was  guilty  of  no  im- 
propriety of  language,  when  he  spoke  oi  divers  baptisms. 

Let  the  reader  now  glance  at  some  suggestions,  that  will 
enable  him  to  decide  correctly  as  to  the  force  of  these  words, 
when  applied  to  the  Christian  ordinance. 

1.  Words  taken  from  a  common  use,  and  applied  in  a  spe- 
cial manner  to  express  a  religious  rite,  must  necessarily  have  a 
special  sense.  They  cover  a  new  idea,  created  by  the  new 
institution,  and  consequently  must  have  a  new  shade  of  mean- 
ing. The  idea  of  Christian  Baptism  did  not  exist  till  our 
Saviour  created  it  by  instituting  the  rite.  This  institution 
gave  necessarily  a  new  meaning  to  the  word.  As  a  religious 
ceremony.  Baptism  is  neither  immersion  nor  sprinkling.  It 
stands  now  for  a  religious  rite — and  that  rite  is  water  applied 
religiously  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity.     The  use  of  the  word 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  11 

supper  confirms  these  remarks.  Like  baptism,  this  is  a  com- 
mon word  used  in  a  special  sense.  It  has  necessarily  a  new 
meaning-.  Eating  and  drinking  as  men  were  accustomed  to 
at  supper  in  those  days,  would  not  express  the  meaning. 
Bear  this  in  mind.  The  word  supper  denotes  an  ordinary 
meal ;  but  an  ordinary  meal  is  not  the  Lord's  Supper.  This 
Supper  is  bread  and  wine  used  religiously.  The  word  bap- 
tism denotes  washing  in  water  in  divers  ways  ;  but  washing 
in  water  is  not  the  Lord's  Baptism.  This  Baptism  is  water 
used  religiously  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity.  In  these  nine 
words  you  have  the  rite,  and  the  whole  of  it. 

2.  That  this  is  the  meaning  attached  to  the  word,  and 
that  any  particular  way  of  applying  water  is  not  essential,  may 
be  made  still  more  evident.  We  have  already  established  the 
fact  that  the  word  baptism  signifies  the  application  of  a  liquid 
in  divers  ways.  Now,  then,  the  question  comes — Why  has 
the  Holy  Ghost  made  use  of  a  word  which  designates  no  one 
way  of  using  a  liquid  ?  Plainly  because  the  manner  in  which 
the  water  is  applied,  is  not  essential  to  the  rite,  any  more  than 
the  manner  of  applying  water  is  essential  in  a  common  wash- 
ing. 

3.  But  further ;  let  the  reader  inquire  whether  something 
may  not  be  gathered  from  our  Saviour's  instructions  respect- 
ing the  nature  of  ceremonial  washings,  which  will  throw  ad- 
ditional light  on  the  point  before  us.  A  single  hiiit  from  his 
lips  will  have  weight  with  every  honest  searcher  after  truth. 
Let  Christ  be  our  teacher.  Let  us  value  what  he  has  aught 
us  to  value,  and  lay  no  stress  on  what  he  evidently  regarded 
aa  unimportant.  Now  when  he  was  washing  his  disciples' 
feet,  Peter  desired  him  to  wash  not  his  feet  only.  But  he 
replied,  "He  that  is  washed  [i.  e.  spiritually  cleansed] 
needeth  not,  save  to  wash  his  feet" — i.  e.  needs  to  have  a 
ceremonial  washing  but  partially  applied.  Here  is  a  statement 
of  a  general  principle,  with  respect  to  ceremonial  washings. 


12  HINTS   TO   AN    INQUIRER. 

It  shows  that  our  Saviour  deemed  the  quantity  of  water,  and 
the  manner  of  its  application,  of  no  importance. 

We  shall  show,  in  the  following  chapter,  that  if  any  partic- 
ular way  of  applying  water  is  more  favored  in  the  Bible  than 
another,  and  more  suitable  to  the  design  of  baptism,  it  is 
sprinkling  or  pouring. 


CHAPTER   II. 

MEANING    OF    THE    WOUD    CONTINUED.        SIGNIFICATION     OF 

BAPTISM. 

♦ 

Inquirer.  Well,  Sir,  your  remarks  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism shook  my  confidence  in  my  former  opinions  ;  and  wish- 
ing to  hear  both  sides,  I  sought  an  interview  with  Mr. , 

■who  made  altogether  a  different  impression  on  my  mind. 

Teacher.  Pray  tell  me  in  what  manner  he  treated  the 
subject. 

Inquirer.  He  gave  me  many  examples  from  dictionaries 
of  different  languages,  and  from  Greek  writers,  (for  he  is 
quite  a  scholar,)  in  which  the  word  baptize  signifies  to  im- 
merse.    He  quoted  also  certain  distinguished  Pedobaptists. 

Teacher.  But  did  he  give  any  cases  where  it  has  other 
significations  1  In  other  words,  did  he  allude  to  any  exam- 
ples where  the  word  means  to  pour,  or  simply  to  wash  ? 

Inquirer.    He  did  not. 

Teacher.    But  ought  he  not  to  have  done  this? 

Inquirer.    Certainly,  if  it  is  ever  used  in  these  senses. 

Teacher.  We  do  not  deny,  my  friend,  that  baptize  in  the 
original  sometimes  signifies  plunging  a  substance  into  a  liquid  ; 
but  we  have  proved  that  it  also  signifies  pouring  a  liquid  upon 
a  substance.  What  then? — We  have  here  a  word  which  de- 
notes the  application  of  water  in  divers  loays.  If  the  word 
therefore  denotes  the  application  of  water  in  divers  ways,  it  is 
indeterminate,  like  our  English  word  wash,  and  does  not  de- 
fine any  one  way  in  which  water  shall  be  applied  in  the  reli- 
2 


14  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

gious  rite.  This  conclusion  is  immovable.  We  have  sus- 
tained it  by  a  multitude  of  examples  cited  before  ;  and  that 
all  lexicographers  concur  in  it,  no  intelligent  Immerser  will 
deny. 

One  vv^ord  as  to  quotations  from  distinguished  Pedobaptists. 
They  admit  that  the  word  means  immerse,  just  as  we  have 

ADMITTED  IT  IN  THESE  REMARKS.       NoW,  SUppOSC  yOU   should 

go  and  report  our  remarks,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  leave  the 
impression  that  we  have  conceded  that  baptize  means  to  im- 
merse, and  nothing  else — would  that  be  honest?  No.  It 
would  be  falsehood  under  the  cloak  of  truth.*     And^e  have 

*  As  an  illustraiion  of  the  truth  of  this  remark,  a  striking  case  has 
occurred  while  these  sheets  were  going  to  press.  The  editor  of  the 
Christian  Watchman  has  published  an  article  to  show  that  the  word 
"  baptize  means  immerse,  and  nothing'  else."  And  how  does  he  show 
it?  He  quotes  lexicons  to  the  number  of  twenty-two,  after  this 
fashion : — 

" '  Bapiizo,  properly  immergo  ac  intingo  in  aquam  mergo ;  to  im- 
merse, to  dip,  to  plunge  into  water.' — Sclileusner''s  Lex. 

"  *  Baptizo,  in  its  primary  and  radical  sense — I  cover  Avith  water. 
It  is  used  to  denote,  1st — I  plunge  or  sink  completely  under  water.' — 
JEwing's  Lex. 

'" Bapto,  to  dip  in,  to  immerse;  Bapiizo,  to  submerge,  sink.' — E. 
Robinson's  Lex. 

" ' Bapto,  to  dip,  to  plunge  into  water;  Baptizo,  to  immerse.' — 
J.  Don  eg  an' s  Lex." 

We  have  taken  the  trouble  to  examine  the  authors  above  named, 
and  have  been  astonished  at  the  glaring  injustice  which  has  been 
done  to  them.  We  suppose,  that,  were  we  to  examine  the  v/hole  list, 
we  should  find  most  or  all  of  them  used  in  the  same  way.  Let  the 
reader  take  notice  that  these  authors  are  represented  by  the  editor  as 
saying  that  the  onhj  meaning  of  the  word  is  to  immerse,  dip,  or 
plunge.  He  will  then  be  surprised  to  learn,  that  they  all  give  olhei 
significations,  as  follows  : — 

ScHLEUSNER  says,  the  word  means  ahluo,  lava,  aquii  purgo ;  i.  e. 
to  perform  ablution,  to  wash,  to  purge  with  water,  and  also  imbue. 

Robinson  says — "In  the  New  Testament  it  means — to  wash,  to 
perform  ablution,  to  cleanse — also  to  tinge,  to  dye,"  &c. 

DoNEQAN  says,  it  means  to  wash,  to  dye — to  dye  one's  hair. 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  19 

been  pained  at  this  disingenuous  dealing  of  many  writers  in 
favor  of  immersion.     They  have  abused  the  minds  of  their 

EwiNG  says — "  In  its  primary  and  radical  sense,  it  means  to  cover 
with  water,  or  some  other  fluid,  in  whatever  manner  this  is  done ; 
whether  by  immersiori  or  aifusion,  wholly  or  partially,  permanently 
or  for  a  moment.  Hence  the  word  is  used  in  several  different 
SENSES.  It  is  used  to  denote  to  plunge,  or  sink  completely  under 
water — to  cover  partially  with  water — to  wet — to  cover  with  water 
flowing  or  pouring  upon — to  wash  in  general,  without  specifying  the 
mode — to  wash  for  the  special  purpose  of  symbolical,  ritual,  or  cere- 
monial purification."  He  gives  examples  of  the  use  of  the  word: — 
"  '  He  i}f0.  is  washed  [baptized]  from  [the  pollution  of]  a  dead  body, 
and  again  toucheth  it,  what  profit  hath  he  by  his  washing?' — Sirach 
XXXI.  25,  or  xxxiv.  25.  When  this  passage  is  compared  with  Num. 
xix.  9 — 22,  it  will  a^ear,  that  baptize  is  used  by  the  apocryphal 
writer  for  the  application  of  the  water  of  sprinkling-.  ***** 
It  may  here  be  observed  that  ceremonial  purification  by  immersion 
was  always  performed  by  the  unclean  person  himself,  (and  indeed 
decency  required  this ;  as  this  kind  of  purification  never  appears  to 
have  been  the  immersing  of  persons  with  their  clothes  on,)  but  that  the 
mode  was  ahcays  different,  when  the  purification  was  administered  by 
another.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  baptize,  when  employed  in  the  New 
Testam.ent,  is  almost  always  used."  He  further  says,  that — "  To  main- 
tain, as  some  have  done,,  that  baptize,  when  thus  applied,  ought  always 
to  be  rendered  plunge,  dip,  immerse,  or  wash,  betrays  inattention  to 
its  real  force  and  import." 

Thus  speak  the  lexicographers,  whom  the  Watchman  represents  as 
saying  that  "baptize  means  immerse,  and  nothing"  else."  It  will  be 
seen  that  he  makes  them  say  that,  by  suppressing  what  they  do  say. 
After  quoting  his  twenty-two  lexicons,  after  this  fashion,  the  Watch- 
man utters  this  remarkable  sentence  : — "  These  are  but  specimens  of 
the  unanimous  testimony  of  scholars  and  lexicographers,  not  one  ofi 
whom  ever  gave  the  word  the  dejinition  of  sprinkling,  pouring,  or 
keel-hauling." 

Mark  it — he  says  not  one  of  these  "  ever  gave  the  word  the  defini 
Hon  of  sprinkling ;"  whereas  Ewing  expressly  says  it  is  used,  in  a 
case  referred  to  by  him,  for  the  application  of  the  loater  of  sprinkling. 
He  further  says  that  to  maintain  what  the  Watchman  does  maintain, 
"betrays  inattention  to  its  ibrce  and  import."     And  yet  the  Watch- 


16  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

unlearned  readers,  by  a  sort  of  false  dealing  which  puts  a 
part  of  the  truth  in  place  of  the  whole. 

Inquirer,  It  seems  strange  to  me,  that  so  many  Christians 
who  are  sincere  and  honest,  and  many  of  them  highly  intelli- 
gent, should  contend  that  this  word  signifies  only  immersion, 
if  there  is  no  more  foundation  for  their  opinion  than  what  now 
appears. 

Teacher,  And  does  it  not  seem  equally  strange,  that  a 
much  greater  number  of  good  men,  equally  honest,  sincere 
and  intelligent,  should  so  positively  deity  that  assumption,  if 
there  is  no  foundation  for  their  denial?  Though  we  protest 
against  the  use  of  human  authority  in  such  a  questioWas  this, 
it  is  fair  to  meet  human  authority  witli  human  authority. 
And  let  us  ask,  who  were  the  translators  of  our  English 
Bible  1  This  translation  was  completed  b^  galaxy  of  minds, 
read  in  the  languages  to  an  extent  which 'few  scholars  now 
attain.     And  on  this  subject  they  followed  the  track  struck 

man  quotes  him,  as  supporting  what  he  thus  expressly  disclaims  ! 
Now  let  us  ask,  in  the  fear  of  God,  how  do  such  mistakes,  put  forth 
by  scores  in  a  single  article,  occur?  That  the  editor  would  wil- 
fully deceive  the  public,  we  may  not  believe.  But  we  should  not  like 
to  risk  what  little  credit  we  have  for  scholarship,  or  moral  probity,  on 
such  a  declaration.  It  is  a  painful  fact,  that  the  Immersers'  cause  has 
for  several  generations  been  sustained  by  just  such  assertions,  respect- 
ing authorities,  right  in  the  face  of  those  authorities.  We  can  well 
see  why  Immersers  are  so  anxious  to  sustain  such  a  declaration ; 
for  their  cause  rests  upon  it.  If  the  word  has  one  other  meaning, 
their  whole  fabric  falls.  They  choose  to  appeal  to  lexicons.  This  is 
but  a  secondary  source  of  evidence.  But  after  having  proved  our 
point  from  original  sources,  we  have  followed  them  to  the  lexicons, 
which  they  have  selected,  and  find  that  every  one,  so  far  as  we  have 
consulted,  disagrees  with  them ;  and  that  their  quotations  are  per- 
versions. If,  l)y  saying  that  these  authors  agree  with  them,  they 
mean  that  these  authors  say  that  immersion  is  one  of  the  meanings; 
very  well ;  we  agree  with  them.  But*f4»appens  that  they  bring  the 
quotations  to  show  that  the  word  has  no  other  meaning ;  and  as  to 
this  point,  not  one  agrees  with  thcnvt- 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  17 

out  b)'-  the  martyr  Tyndal,  and  by  his  successors  equally 
worthy.  Why  did  they  not  thus  translate?  Do  you  say, 
^because  they  were  Pedobaptists  1  But  why  were  they  Pedo- 
'Ijaptists'? — were  they  so.  against  their  honest  convictions? 
And  had  not  they  the  means  of  knowing  ?  They  could  use 
the  Greek  and  Latin  as.freely  as  their  mother  tongue.  Tyn- 
dal was  in  fact  the  author,  and  his  successors  the  endorsers, 
of  this-tr'anslation  of  the  word.  Was  Tyndal  "  afraid  to  take 
mp  the  cro55^'*i«and  go  down  the  banks  of  Jordan  1  He  was 
rtot  afraid  to  go  to  i^ie  stake  in  defence  of  his  translation; 
for  he  did  it; 

*•-  Tnqu^er.'^I  have  understood  that  the  Greek  church  prac- 
tise' immersion ;  andt  are  they  not  good  authority  on  such  a 
question  ? 

"  Teaci^pr.  We^e  not  how  they,  in  their  deep  ignorance, 
^ave  any  tetter  sources  of  l.nov, ledge,  as  to  a  rite  established 
among  Jews,  than  w^e  have.  They  have  vied  with  the  Papal 
chiwch  in  corruptions,  in  superstitions,  and  in  placing  undue 
stres^flf  Outward  ceremonies.  And  as  baptizing  by  immer- 
sion is  one  instance  of  departure  from  the  simplicity  of  the 
Gospel,  it  is  very  natural  .that  they  should  have  adopted  it. 
Though  they  do  not  lay-  as  much  stress  on  that  mode  as  our 
Immersers  do,  for  they -do  not  always  practise  it;  and  are 
therefore  against  the  principle  that  it  is  essential  to  baptism. 
So  that  w^hile  the  Greek  church  immei-se,  and  sometimes 
immerse  three  times,  they  are  against  the  principles  of  our 
Immersers.  And  if  we  are  to  suppose  them  to  be  better 
authority  than  others  on*  this  subject,  we  see  not  w^hy  we 
must  not  pay -them  the  same  deference  on  other  subjects.  If 
we  begin  to  copy  their  corruptions,  we  know  not  where  to 
end. 

Our  object  is,  to  ascertain  the  meaning  attached  to  the 
word  baptize  by  the  sacred  loriters.  Now,  if  it  were  true  that 
its  literal  meaning  wer^e^immerse,  and  that  this  was  invariably 
its  signification  among  the  aneient  Greeks,  (whose  authority 


16  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

in  this  matter  must  take  the  precedence  of  their  degenerate 
descendants,)  it  would  not  follow  that  it  must  necessarily  be 
employed  in  this  sense  by  the  writers  of  the  Bible.  When 
words  pass  from  one  country  to  another,  and  from  a  profane 
vocabulary  into  the  sacred,  their  signification  is  often  very 
much  modified,  and  sometimes  entirely  changed.  The  literal 
meaning  of  the  word  spirit,  for  example,  is  wind ;  but  who 
will  argue  from  this  fact  that  it  has  no  other  signification  in 
the  inspired  writings  ?  Every  scholar  knows  that  the  Scripture 
phraseology  is  pecuhar.  Hence  the  Bible  is  the  only  safe 
interpreter  of  Bible  words.  When  therefore  it  is  remem- 
bered, that  the  word  baptize  has  diflerent  meaniupe  in  the 
•Greek  classics,  and  is  used  by  the  writers  of  the  bible 

WHEN    THEY    COULD    NOT    HAVE    MEANT    BY  IT  IMMERSION,  We 

see  nothing  authoritative  in  the  practice  ^the  modern  Greek 
church — corrupt,  superstitious,  and  plelsed  with  religious 
■toys. 

Inquirer.  My  mind  has  been  so  long  accustomed  to  asso- 
■ciate  immersion  with  the  sound  of  baptism,  that,  even  when 
•my  understanding  is  convinced,  it  seems  to  me  like  a  perver- 
sion of  terms  to  call  pouring  baptism. 

Teacher.  It  is  unquestionably  difficult  to  rid  the  mind  of 
€arly  impressions.  Nor,  indeed,  can  we  expect  to  do  it  in- 
stantly. The  influence  of  erroneous  views,  once  entertained, 
will  be  felt  in  the  workings  of  the  imagination,  long  after  the 
higher  powers  of  the  mind  have  pronounced  them  false. 
But,  my  friend,  did  Homer  pervert  his  own  language,  when 
•he  spoke  of  a  lake  baptized  with  the  blood  of  a  mouse  ?  Did 
Plutarch  pervert  the  word,  when  he  called  that  a,  baptized 
bladder,  which  he  said  did  not  and  could  not  go  under  water? 
If  such  writers  could  call  the  pouring  of  a  liquid  on  a  sub- 
stance baptism,  it  is  certainly  arrogance  in  us  moderns  to  op- 
pose our  fancy  to  their  knowledge^  And,  furthermore,  if 
this  use  of  the  word  did  not  offend  the  taste  of  inspired  men  , 
if  the  apostle  Paul  did  not  scruple  to  call  (Heb.  ix.   10)  the 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  19 

typical  cleansings  of  the  Jewish  economy,  baptisms^  (Lev.  iv. 
6 ;  xvii.  6  ;  Num.  xix.  18 ;  Lev.  vii.  14  ;  Num.  xix.  21 ; 
Lev.  xiv.  7,  51,  &c.)  when  ahnost  every  case  was  performed 
by  sprinkling,  why  should  you  feel  any  difficulty  ?  Is  not 
his  authority  to  be  relied  on  1  Nay,  if  God  himself  speaka 
of  the  outpourings  of  his  Spirit  as  baptism,  and  thereby  teaches 
us  that  He  is  satisfied  with  this  use  of  the  term,  why  should 
you  not  be '? 

Inquirer.  With  whatever  confidence  immersion  has  been 
pronounced  to  be  the  only  meaning  of  the  word  baptize,  the 
evidence  certainly  preponderates  in  your  favor.  Never  could 
I  exclu^Je  from  the  Lord's  table  Christian  brethren,  for  ven- 
turing to  use  this  word  as  God  uses  it !  But  must  I  under- 
stand you  to  hold  that  our  Saviour  has  left  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism wholly  undefined  ? 

Teacher.  If  the  way  of  applying  water  in  the  rite  consti- 
tutes the  mode  of  baptism,  he  has  left  it  undefined.  But  this 
is  not  the  mode.  Religious  baptism  is  water  applied  reli- 
giously in  the  name  of  the  Trinity.  So  much  is  essential — so 
much  is  defined.  He  who  makes  anything  more  essential  to 
the  ordinance,  does  it  at  his  peril.  He  introduces  an  occasion 
of  discord  into  the  church  of  Christ.  And  by  teaching  for 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men,  he  takes  the  responsi- 
bility of  engendering  strife  and  confusion  in  the  house  of  God. 
To  add  to  the  commands  of  God,  and  to  insist  that  our  ad- 
ditions are  God's  commands,  is  as  injurious  to  men  and  oflfen- 
sive  to  God,  as  to  take  away  what  he  has  commanded — as 
may  be  seen  in  the  mammoth  corruptions  of  the  Romish 
church,  which  consist  as  much  in  additions  as  in  subtrac- 
tions. 

Inquirer.  But  may  we  not  suppose  that  some  one  way  is 
better  than  another  1  And  is  it  not  more  significant  to  plunge 
the  subject  into  the  water  ? 

Teacher.  That  depends  upon  what  baptism  signifies. 
And  this  brings  up  an  important  principle.     If  we  can  dis- 


20  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

cover  what  is  the  things  signified  by  baptism,  that  will  help  us 
to  determine  the  most  significant  way.  And  surely  the  Bible 
has  not  left  this  matter  in  darkness — for  unless  one  knows 
what  the  rite  signifies,  he  would  not  know  what  exercises  of 
mind  he  should  h$,ve  when  he  presents  himself  for  baptism; 
i.  e.  would  not  know  how  to  obey  the  command  to  be  bap- 
tized. 

Inquirer.  This  is  a  plain  matter.  If  baptism  can  be 
shown  to  signify  anything  into  which  mea  are  immersed,  that 
would  go  far  to  prove  immersion  to  be  the  way  ;  and  on  the 
other  hand,  if  it-  signifies  any  influences  that  are  uniformly 
spoken  of  as  pOured  out  or  sprinkled  upon  men,  then  pouring 
or  sprinkling-  would  be  more  signiTicant.  The  type  should 
correspond  to  the  antitype*.       ' 

Teacher.  Baptism  '^  an  emblem  of  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  on  the  human  soul.  So  Paul  seems  to  teach,  Eph.  v. 
25 — "  Christ  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself  for  it,  that 
he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water 
[i.  e.  baptism,  for  Christ  has  no  other  washing  of  water]  by  the 
word."  Here  was  the  sanctifying  and  the  cleansing,  the 
antitype  and  the  type.  Again — "According  to  his  mercy  he 
saved  us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  the  renewing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost."  That  is,  we  are  saved  by  that  regener- 
ation, or  sanctifying  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  of  which 
the  washing  of  water  is  ah  emblem.  Again — "  Let  us  dravr 
near  with  a  true  heart,  in  full  assurance  of  faith,  having  our 
hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience  and  our  bodies  washed 
with  pure  water."  Here  the  washing  of  the  body  with  pure 
water  (or  baptism,  the  6nly  religious  washing)  is  joined  with 
the  thing  signified  by  it — a  heart  sprinkled  or  purified.  Again 
— "  The  like  figure  whereunto,  baptism,  doth  now  save  us, 
not  the  putting  off  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  [i.  e.  not  the  mere 
outward  cleansing  by  baptismal  water,]  but  the  answer  of  a 
good .  copscience," — that  is,  our  being  purified,  so  that  we 
live  with  a  good  conscience. 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  21 

Ag^ain — "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit, 
he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."  Now  why  are  water 
and  the  Spirit  thus  connected,  if  the  water  (i.  e.  baptism)  be 
not  an  emblem  of  the  Spirit"?  Surely  the  water  is  not  a  co- 
agent  with  the  Spirit  in  the  new  birth.  Again,  here  is  a 
passage  still  more  decisive.  Acts  xxii.  16 — "  Arise,  be  bap- 
tized, and  wash  aw^ay  thy  sins."  How  can  baptism  wash 
away  sins?  In  no  way,  except  it  be  as  a  symbol  of  washing, 
the  thing  to  be  proved. 

Further — the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  called  baptism  in 
many  places,  which  any  one  may  see  for  himself.  And  what 
can  be  more  decisive  ?  Prof.  Stuart,  on  this  subject,  observes 
— "  Under  the  ancient  dispensation  the  rites  were  divided  into 
two  great  classes,  viz.,  those  significant  of  'purification,  and 
those  significant  of  atonement  for  sin.  Nothing  could  be  more 
appropriate  than  this.  Man  needed  the  one,  and  the  other, 
in  order  to  find  acceptance  with  God  :  the  one  is  the  work  of 
the  Spirit,  and  the  other  of  the  Saviour  who  redeemed  us  by 
his  blood.  Is  there  any  change  in  the  essential  conditions  of 
salvation,  under  the  new  dispensation  ?  None,  we  must 
answer.  Are  not  the  significant  symbols,  then,  under  the 
new  dispensation,  a  summary  of  those  which  existed  under 
the  old "?  The  belief  of  this  spontaneously  forces  itself  upon 
my  mind.  The  work  of  the  Spirit  is  still  symbolized  under 
the  Gospel,  and  a  Savior's  blood  is  still  represented — the  one 
baptism  signifies,  the  other  is  as  plainly  indicated  by  the 
Lord's  Supper." 

Our  object  is  here  to  show,  in  brief,  the  close  connection 
between  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  and  baptism  with  water, 
and  that  the  one  is  a  symbol  of  the  other.  Now  if  baptism  by 
water  is  an  emblem  of  baptism  by  the  Spirit,  we  have  only  to 
look  into  the  Bible  and  see  in  what  way  we  are  brought  into 
contact  with  the  influences  of  the  Spirit  ?  If  we  are  currently 
represented  as  being  put  into  the  Spirit,  or  plunged  into  the 
Spirit,  we  concede  the  whole  m.atter  in  question  ;  and  if,  on 


29  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

the  other  hand,  the  Spirit  is  currently  said  to  he  poured  out 
upon  us,  or  sprinkled  upon  us,  then  you  must  concede  that 
pouring  or  sprinkling  is  the  more  significant  way.  We  pro- 
ceed, then,  to  quote  some  instances: — "  I  will  pour  water 
upon  him  that  is  thirsty,  and  floods  upon  the  dry  ground.  I 
will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed,  and  my  blessing  upon  thine 
offspring" — Isa.  44.  "Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water 
upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean;  and  I  will  put  my  Spirit 
within  you,  [not  put  you  into  my  Spirit]  and  cause  you  to 
walk  in  my  statutes."  "  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all 
flesh" — Joel  ii.  28.  "Until  the  Spirit  be  poured  out" — 
Isaiah  xxxii.  15.  "For  I  have  poured  out  my  Spirit" — 
Ezekiel  xxxix.  29. 

Next  take  some  examples  from  the  New  Testament.  John 
saw  the  Spirit  descending,  and  lighting  upon  Jesus — Matt, 
iii.  16.  The  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which  heard  the 
word  ;  and  Peter's  friends  "  were  astonished,  because  that  on 
the  Gentiles  was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost" — 
Acts  x.  "And  as  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on 
them,  as  on  us  at  the  beginning  ;  then  remenihered  I  the  words 
of  the  Lord,  how  that  he  said,  John  indeed  baptized  with  water, 
but  ye  shall  he  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghosts 

We  have  thus  given  a  few  specimens,  to  show  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  said  "  to  fall  "  upon  men,  to  be  "  poured  out  " 
upon  them.  And  it  is  in  reference  to  this  subject,  that  God 
promises  "to  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  us,"  and  that  his 
grace  shall  "  come  down  as  rain  upon  the  mown  grass,  and 
as  showers  which  water  the  earth."  It  is  of  no  consequence, 
however,  as  to  the  point  before  us,  whether  these  things  are 
said  in  connection  with  baptism  or  not.  They  are  brought 
simply  to  show  in  what  manner  the  Scriptures  speak  of  the 
communication  of  the  Spirit's  influences.  Now,  then,  if  the 
thing  signified  is  uniformly  represented  as  sprinkled,  or  poured 
out,  upon  the  subject,  that  which  signifies  it  may  be  pouring 
or  sprinkling.     Indeed,  "  it  is  by  no  means  probable  that  God 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  23 

should  speak  of  his  own  operations  oneway,  and  symholically 
represent  them  in  a  different  way  ;  that  he  should  promise  to 
sprinkle  or  pour  out  his  Spirit  upon  us,  and  to  confirm  this 
promise  would  command  us  to  be  plunged  into  water.  There 
would  be  no  analogy,  in  this  case,  between  the  promise  and 
the  seal ;  and  the  discrepance  would  give  rise  to  a  confusion 
of  ideas.  This  I  conceive  to  be  an  argument  of  considerable 
force  in  favor  of  our  mode  of  administering  baptism,  and  an 
objection  against  immersion  which  cannot  be  easily  evaded." 
.    Dick.  Theol. 


CHAPTER   III. 

BURIAL    WITH    CHRIST.       ITS    IMPORT. 

In  our  last  chapter  we  set  forth  the  design  of  baptism,  and 
showed  conclusively  that  it  is  to  represent  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  upon  the  soul,  and  that  his  influences  are  invari- 
ably represented  as  coming  down,  either  sprinkled  or  poured, 
upon  the  subject.  And  the  inquirer  will  recollect  the  ad- 
mitted principle,  that  the  type  and  antitype  should  correspond. 

We  are  aware  that  Immersers  make  baptism  to  be  a  sign 
of  fellowship  with  Christ  in  his  burial,  and  to  be  the  main 
design.  This  view  they  found  upon  two  passages — Romans 
vi.  and  Colossians  ii.  12.  A  glance  at  these  passages,  in 
their  connection,  will  show  that  great  difficulties,  at  least, 
stand  in  the  way  of  this  conclusion. 

The  first  question  is,  whether  these  two  passages  more 
clearly  teach  that  burial  is  the  grand  design,  than  those  nu- 
merous passages  which  we  have  quoted  teach  that  purifica- 
tion is  the  grand  design.  Let  the  inquirer  look  over  those 
passages,  and  compare.  And  in  this  connection  we  will  ob- 
serve, that  the  two  ideas  of  burial  in  a  grave  and  purification 
by  water  are  incongruous.  Both  cannot  be  held.  Purity 
contrasts  with  the  corruption  and  filth  of  the  grave. 

2.  But  supposing  this  difliculty  surmounted,  another  pre- 
sents itself.  Before  Immersers  can  draw  their  inference,  it 
must  be  proved  that  the  apostle  in  these  passages  refers  to 
water  baptism.  Their  whole  argument  rests  on  this  assump- 
tion— and  yet  it  is  a  mere  assumption.  And  if  it  should  turn 
out  that  the  apostle  means  by  baptism  a  spiritual  purification, 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  39 

(i.  e.  a  spiritual  baptism,)  as  most  surely  he  does,nhen  all 
semblance  of  an  argument  from  these  texts  would  vanish  ; 
for  we  have  seen  how  spiritual  baptism  is  performed. 

3.  This  difficulty  being  surmounted,  another  comes.  It  is 
a  question  not  so  easily  settled,  as  to  what  the  likeness  shall 
be.  If  the  reader  will  turn  to  the  passage,  he  will  see  that 
there  is  a  comparison  with  death,  whh  crucifixion,  with 
burial,  &c.  Suppose  we  insist  that  baptism  shall  imitate  the 
form  of  Christ's  death,  and  not  his  burial,  (for  surely  the  two 
things  are  very  distinct,)  what  would  the  Immersers  say? 
Paul  says,  baptized  into  his  death  ;  and  if  the  passage 
is  in  any  way  decisive  of  the  mode  of  water  baptism — if 
this  reasoning  from  it  is  conclusive — it  concludes  both  ways  : 
that  baptism  must  imitate  crucifixion,  or  at  least,  after  the 
Papists'  mode,  bear  the  sign  of  the  cross  ;  and  must  also 
imitate  his  burial. 

4.  This  difficulty  being  surmounted,  another  comes.  How 
shall  we  baptize  in  a  way  to  imitate  a  burial?  Nations  have 
various  modes  of  burial,  but  in  no  case  do  they  bury  by  thrust- 
ing the  body  through  the  soil.  The  common  modes  of  burial 
are  more  like  pouring  or  sprinkling.  The  body  is  placed  in 
an  open  grave,  and  the  earth  is  poured  or  sprinkled  upon  it. 
The  classical  emblem  has  been  (jacfus  pulveris)  a  handful  of 
earth  tossed  in  the  air.  Our  Episcopal  friends  represent  a 
burial  by  sprinkling  earth  upon  the  coffin. 

5.  This  difficulty  being  surmounted,  another  comes.  If 
baptism  must  imitate  the  form  of  any  burial,  it  must  imitate 
that  of  Christ ;  and  Christ  was  not  buried  in  the  common 
way.  His  body  was  not  sunk  in  the  ground,  but  merely  laid 
away  on  a  shelf  in  a  chamber  of  an  excavated  rock. 

These  are  some  of  the  difficulties  that  meet  any  intelligent 

mind,  on  the  first  glance  at  the  subject.     In  order  to  set  this 

subject  well  before  the  mind,  we  will  state  the  true  meaning 

of  the  apostle,  and  then  point  out  the  sources  of  the  Immersers^ 

3 


26  HINTS    TO   AN    INQUIRER, 

error.  The  two  passages  are  alike.  Take  the  case  in  Ro- 
mans :  what  is  the  drift  of  Paul's  remarks?  He  is  showing 
that  the  doctrines  of  grace  do  not  warrant  one  to  continue  in 
&in,  that  grace  may  abound.  He  is  attributing  to  the  baptism 
of  which  he  speaks,  effects  which  water  baptism  is  inadequate 
to  produce.  His  main  idea  is,  that  such  is  the  nature  of  a 
union  with  Christ, — a  union  brought  about  by  the  purification 
of  the  heart,  i.  e.  spiritual  baptism, — that  to  speak  of  those 
thus  baptized  continuing  in  sin,  is  as  great  a  contradiction  as 
to  speak  of  a  living  dead  man.  "  Shall  we  continue  in  sin, 
that  grace  may  abound  1  God  forbid.  How  shall  we  that 
are  dead  to  sin  live  any  longer  therein?"  Mark  the  effects 
which  he  attributes  to  the  baptism  of  which  he  speaks.  This 
baptism  is  followed  necessarily  by  death  to  sin.  It  is  not 
enough  to  say,  such  ought  to  be  dead  to  sin  ;  the  certainty  that 
they  will  be  is  essential  to  the  argument.  Indeed,  the  argu- 
ment is  good  for  nothing  without  absolute  certaintv .  Now 
does  that  certainty  follow  water  baptism  ?  Far  from  it.  It 
follows  spiritual  baptism,  and  no  other. 

It  is  as  if  he  had  said — How  shall  they  who  have  received 
spiritual  baptism,  (in  other  words,  who  have  been  brought 
into  spiritual  union  with  Christ,)  continue  in  sin?  They  are 
united  to  Christ  in  his  death  to  the  world.  Taking  fire  at 
the  thought,  he  gives  utterance  to  his  feelings  in  a  variety  of 
strong  expressions  of  the  certainty  of  that  death,  and  conse- 
quent insensibility  to  the  inducements  to  continue  in  sin. 
"What  is  the  effect  of  natural  dissolution?  Is  it  not  the 
interruption  of  all  our  former  appetites?  What  is  the  condi- 
tion of  a  man  buried?  Does  he  hunger  or  thirst  any  more? 
Will  beauty  move  his  love  ?  Will  the  tabret  or  the  harp,  the 
richest  wines  or  the  most  luxuriant  viands,  entice  him  be- 
yond the  bounds  of  temperance  ?  Load  the  coffin  with  gold  , 
clothe  the  skeleton  with  scarlet  and  ermine  ;  will  this  awaken 
his  avarice,  or  will  these  elevate  his  pride  ?  Surely,  if  the 
soul  perceives  at  all  the  objects  which  surround  her  recent 


HINTS    TO    AN     INQUIRER.  SWT 

dwelling,  she  perceives  them  but  to  recog-nise  their  utter 
vanity,  and  to  feel  that  these  are  not  the  things  which  can 
any  longer  contribute  to  her  happiness!"  Such  are  the 
effects  of  that  death  to  sin  which  follows  a  union  with  Christ ; 
and  in  this  sense  the  apostle  says  of  true  Christians,  that  they 
are  crucified,  dead,  and  buried. 

The  above  remarks  make  it  clear,  that  the  passage  in  Ro- 
mans refers  to  a  spiritual  baptism  and  purification,  and  can 
decide  nothing  as  to  the  form  in  which  water  is  to  be  applied. 

The  passage  in  Colossians  still  more  clearly  bears  this 
meaning.  Read  it.  "  In  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised, 
with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ : 
buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with 
him,  through  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised 
him  from  the  dead."  Now  here  observe  that  the  Colossians 
are  said  to  have  been  circumcised  in  Christ,  and  to  be  buried 
with  him  in  baptism,  and  in  such  a  way,  as  to  show  that  the 
circumcision  and  baptism  refer  to  the  same  thing.  That  the 
circumcision  imports  a  spiritual  purification  is  certain  ;  for  it 
is  a  circumcision  made  without  hands,  inputting  off  the  body 
of  sin.  And  if  the  circumcision  is  a  purification  made  with- 
out hands,  most  surely  is  the  baptism  one  made  without 
hands  ;  for  both  are  put  in  the  same  relations,  and  import  the 
same  thing.  And,  further,  they  are  said  to  be  buried  with 
Christ  in  baptism,  and  then  risen  with  him  through  faith  of 
the  operation  of  God.  Now,  as  is  the  burial,  so  is  the  resur- 
rection. If  it  is  a  literal  burial  in  the  water,  the  resurrection 
is  a  literal  rising  out  of  the  water.  But  they  had  risen  through 
faith  of  the  operation  of  God.  Yet  persons  immersed  do  not 
thus  rise  by  faith.  The  passage  then,  by  necessity,  imports 
a  death  to  sin,  and  a  resurrection  to  nev/ness  of  life  ;  and  has 
no  reference  to  the  outward  application  of  water,  and  deter- 
mines nothing  as  to  the  manner  in  which  water  should  be 
applied. 


So  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

Now,  havinor  given  the  true  meaning  of  the  apostle  in 
these  passages,  we  are  prepared  to  examine  the  sources  of 
the  Immersers'  error,  touching  them. 

1.  The  first  source  of  error  is  the  imagination.  The  per- 
son has  heard  these  words  so  frequently  repeated  at  the  im- 
mersion of  individuals,  that  they  have  made  an  impression 
upon  his  mind,  and  he  fancies  sume  analogy  between  immer- 
sion and  Christ's  burial.  Few  are  aware  how  much  imagi- 
nation has  to  do  with  this  subject,  and  how  much  impression 
has  been  made  by  pictorial  representations.  And  as  error  has 
been  promoted  in  that  way,  may  not  the  friends  of  truth  learn 
a  lesson  as  to  their  duty  of  securing  the  imagination  on  the 
side  of  truth  1  And  why  should  not  our  children  be  taught, 
by  arguments  addressed  to  the  eye,  the  analogy  between  the 
falling  drops  of  water  and  the  influences  of  the  Spirit,  which 
are  represented  as  coming  down  like  the  rain  upon  the 
grass  1 

2.  The  second  source  of  error  is  a  literal  understanding  of 
the  apostWs  language.  Now,  if  the  burying  is  to  be  taken 
literally,  so  also  the  other  phrases  must  be,  such  as  death, 
crucified,  planted,  &c.  Mark  it,  if  the  burial  is  literal,  the 
death  is  literal  also.  If  there  must  be  a  literal  burial,  there 
must  be  a  literal  death!!!  Again,  the  effects,  as  we  have  ^ 
already  seen,  are  such  as  water  baptism  cannot  produce. 
These  brief  hints  are  sufficient  to  satisfy  every  intelligent 
reader  that  the  literal  interpretation  cannot  be  maintained. 

3.  Among  those  who  admit  a  figurative  sense,  there  is 
another  source  of  error.  The  figure  must  have  a  basis  ;  and 
some  say,  that,  unless  it  is  founded  on  some  outward  form,  it 
can  have  no  basis.  Why  use  the  figure  buried,  they  ask,  if 
the  apostle  had  not  in  his  mind's  eye  something  which  looked 
like  burial?  We  answer:  The  mind,  in  framing  figurative 
language,  as  frequently  fixes  on  the  effects  produced,  as  upon 
any  outward  circumstance.  For  example,  Cicero  said  of  the 
conspiracy  of  Cataline,  which  he  had  crushed — "It  is  dead, 


m?JTS    TO   AN    INQUlREft.  29 

earned  out,  and  buried.''^  His  mind  in  framing  that  figure  was 
not  upon  a  funeral,  or  a  grave,  or  a  burial ;  but  upon  the  effects 
of  the  death,  to  wit,  the  utter  cessation  of  all  trouble  from  the 
conspiracy.  So  we  say  of  a  man  condemned  to  the  penitentiary 
for  life,  that  he  is  dead  to  society,  and  buried.  Why  use  thai 
figure?  It  has  nothing  that  looks  like  a  burial  for  its  basis. 
This  also  is  based  on  certain  effects  resulting  from  death  and 
burial.  While  bishop  Butler  was  living  in  an  obscure  village, 
one  inquired  if  he  was  dead.  "  No,"  another  replied,  "but  he 
is  buried.^'  Why  use  that  figure?  Why  not  contend  here 
that  there  was  something  in  the  author's  eye  that  looked  like  a 
burial  ?  The  figure  was  based  on  one  of  the  eflfects  of  a  burial, 
in  that  he  was  forgotten  by  the  world.  By  this  time,  the 
inquirer  will  see  that  figures  of  this  kind  may  be  used,  with- 
out the  most  distant  allusion  to  anything  that  looks  like  a 
burial. 

Now  then,  when  Paul  said  of  Christians,  that  they  were 
dead,  buried,  and  crucified  with  Christ,  it  is  easy  to  see  that 
he  had  only  certain  results  in  his  mind.  He  meant  only  to 
say,  that  as  Christ,  when  buried,  was  insensible  to  this  world, 
so  are  those,  who  are  spiritually  in  union  with  him,  dead  to 
the  inducements  to  continue  in  sin. 

4.  Another  source  of  this  error  lies  in  taking  a  fart  for  the 
whole  of  the  apostle's  comparison  in  these  texts.  The  Immer- 
ser  feels  bound  to  imitate  Christ  in  only  one  of  the  particulars 
of  the  figurative  representation,  while  consistency  would  re- 
quire him  to  go  through  and  to  make  the  form  of  his  baptism 
correspond  to  all  the  other  particulars.  If  the  form  of  bap- 
tism must  imitate  the  burial  of  Christ,  much  more  must  it  be 
a  baptism  into  death ;  for  the  text  is  even  more  strong  in  that 
particular.  It  says,  "as  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death.''''  Now,  the  same 
rule  that  would  require  a  literal  burial ,  would  require  a  literal 
death.  And  then,  if  in  baptism  we  must  imitate  the  form  of 
Christ's  burial,  we  must,  for  the  same  reason,  imitate  also 
3* 


30  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

the  form  of  his  death  ;  that  is,  his  crucifixion.  We  must  not 
only  be  actually  put  to  death  before  our  burial,  but  we  must 
be  put  to  death  on  a  cross,  since  the  text  lays  even  more 
stress  on  the  crucifixion  and  the  death,  than  it  does  on  the 
burial.  And  to  carry  faithfully  out  this  mode  of  interpreting 
the  passage,  our  baptism  must  imitate  not  only  the  mode  of 
burial,  but  also  that  oi planting ;  for  the  text  also  says,  "  we 
have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death."  So 
we  see  the  Immersers'  error  comes  from  fixing  on  one  part  of 
the  comparison,  and  overlooking  other  parts  quite  as  im- 
portant. 

5.  Still  another  source  of  error  is  a  neglect  of  making  the 
several  parts  of  the  comparison  correspond  ivith  each  other.  For 
instance,  in  the  passage  in  Romans,  the  resurrection  following 
the  burial  is  a  spiritual  one  ;  a  resurrection  to  "  newness  of 
life."  Of  course,  the  death  and  burial  preceding  must  be  a 
death  and  burial  to  sin,  and  not  a  burial  under  water.  So 
in  Colossians,  the  resurrection  is  a  rising  "through  faith  of 
the  operation  of  God,"  and  not  through  the  strength  of  the 
baptizer's  arm.  And  yet  the  Immerser  fails  to  see  that  that 
should  be  a  spiritual  burial  that  goes  before  and  corresponds 
with  such  a  spiritual  resurrection.  He  fails  also  to  make  the 
baptism  and  the  circumcision,  both  representing  one  efifect,  to 
correspond  with  each  other,  as  we  have  shown. 

6.  But  the  main  source  of  error  on  this  subject  consists  in 
overlooking  altogether  the  main  design  of  the  rite  of  baptism. 
We  have  shown,  in  a  former  article,  that  its  main  design  is, 
to  represent  the  outpouring  upon  us  of  the  purifying  and  the 
sanctifying  influences  of  the  Spirit.  And  though  the  Scrip- 
tures are  so  full  on  this  point,  as  we  have  shown,  yet  Immer- 
sers are  loth  to  allow  this  at  all ;  and  if  they  do  allow  it,  they 
will  have  it  that  the  main  design  is  to  represent  a  burial. 
And  yet,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  the  Scriptures  say  no- 
thing OF  any  such   design  ;    AND   DO   NOT  EVEN   HINT   AT  IT, 

unless  these  two  passages  contain  the  hint ;  and  these,  as  we 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  31 

have  shown  beyond  all  ground  for  doubt,  have  no  reference 
to  water  baptism  at  all. 

Another  source  of  error  touching  these  passages  consists 
in  overlooking  the  fact,  that  being  buried  cannot  be  made  an 
act  of  duty ;  while  receiving  baptism  supposes  an  act  of  obe- 
dience; and  supposes  a  mind  apprehending  the  design  of  bap- 
tism, and  recognising  the  truth  symbolized  by  the  rite  ;  and 
at  the  time  of  receiving  the  rite  surrendering  the  heart  to  the 
sway  of  that  truth.  Now  if  the  rite  imports  our  need  of  the 
purifying  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit — if  it  be  the  sign  and 
seal  of  our  surrender  of  ourselves  to  God  in  the  covenant  of 
grace,  and  receiving  the  seal  of  the  Spirit  of  grace,  the  mind 
may  well  correspond  with  this  design,  in  the  act  of  receiving 
the  rite.  And  even  if  it  imported  our  death  to  sin,  the  spirit 
of  obedience  while  receiving  the  rite  might  go  forth  in  a  sur- 
render of  ourselves  to  death,  and  in  a  pledge  of  dying  to  sin 
and  living  to  God.  But  if  the  design  is  made  to  consist  in  a 
burial,  the  spirit  of  obedience  cannot  touch  it.  As  one  is  sup- 
posed to  be  dead  before  he  is  buried,  he  cannot  exercise  obe- 
dience in  submitting  to  a  burial.  Christ  performed  his  highest 
act  of  obedience  when  he  yielded  to  death  on  the  cross  ;  but 
he  did  no  act  of  obedience  w  hen  his  corpse  was  taken  and  laid 
away  in  Joseph's  family  vault.  The  martyrs  have  put  forth 
a  glorious  spirit  of  obedience,  when  they  have  yielded  to  the 
stroke  of  the  executioner  ;  but  they  had  nothing  to  do  in  what 
concerned  their  corpses  afterwards — they  did  not  obey  in  being 
buried.  The  burial  is  supposed  to  be  wholly  the  act  of  others  ; 
ind  in  respect  to  it  the  person  buried  is  wholly  insensible.  In 
what  state  of  mind  then  must  one  receive  the  rite,  in  order  to 
have  his  feelings  at  the  time  correspond  to  the  design  of 
the  ordinance  ?  If  the  posture  and  treatment  of  the  body 
must  imitate  a  burial,  what,  we  ask,  must  be  the  exercises  of 
mind  in  the  mean  time,  in  order  to  conform  to  this?  and  the 
answer  should  be — none  at  all;  since  the  person  buried  has 
no  consciousness  of  his  burial. 


S9  HINTS    TO   AN    INQUIRSR. 

Yet  it  is  very  essential,  when  we  come  to  the  sealing  ordi- 
nances, that  the  mind  work  in  harmony  with  the  design  of 
the  ordinance.  When  we  come  to  the  Lord's  table,  we  are 
required  by  faith  to  discern  the  Lord's  body.  And  why  is  it 
not  as  important  in  baptism,  that  the  mind  fasten  on  the 
design  of  the  ordinance,  and  feel  the  promptings  of  a  holy 
obedience  in  correspondence  with  it  1  Yet  if  burial  be  that 
design,  a  spirit  of  obedience  cannot  reach  it,  unless  we  sup- 
pose the  absurdity  of  being  buried  alive.  This  consideration 
of  itself  is  sufficient  to  determine  that  the  design  of  baptism 
is  not  that  of  burial. 

So  that  the  very  first  principle  of  the  Immersers'  theory,  to 
wit,  that  baptism  was  designed  to  imitate  a  burial,  is  an 
assumption  without  a  shadow  of  foundation.  And  not  only 
has  it  a  mere  guess  for  its  basis,  and  for  its  whole  super- 
structure, but  it  involves  the  absurdity  of  supposing  a  spirit  of 
obedience  to  animate  a  corpse  in  its  burial. 

It  Wi3uld  protract  this  chapter  to  an  inconvenient  length, 
should  we  here  commence  the  examination  of  the  actual  cases 
of  baptism  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  and  show,  as  we 
intend,  that  there  is  no  case  in  the  New  Testament  in 

WHICH  THE  baptism  MIGHT  NOT  HAVE  BEEN  BY  SPRINKLING 
OR  POURING,  AND  MANY  CASES  IN  WHICH  IT  COULD  NOT  HAVE 
BEEN    BY  IMMERSION. 


CHAPTER    IV. 


Inquirer.  Your  remarks  on  those  passages  which  speak  of  a 
burial  with  Christ  by  baptism,  presented  the  subject  in  alight 
which  was  new  to  me.  That  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  spirit- 
ual baptism  is  clear  from  this  fact  alone,  that  he  represents  it 
as  bringing  the  soul  into  sympathy  with  Christ  in  his  indiffer- 
ence to  the  world ;  which  effect  does  not  follow  water  baptism. 
Although  this  has  been  my  opinion  for  some  time,  I  have  all 
along  supposed  that  the  figurative  expression,  "  buried  with 
Christ,"  must  have  its  basis  in  something  external,  which 
looked  like  a  burial.  This  I  am  now  ready  to  confess  was  a 
childish  fancy.  We  notice  in  Paul's  writnigs  a  very  frequent 
use  of  the  figures  of  being  dead,  crucified,  &c.,  in  a  way  in 
which  he  could  have  had  in  his  mind's  eye  only  an  effect  of 
death,  crucifixion,  &c.  And  if  any  one  will  watch  the  work- 
ings of  his  mind  when  using  this  class  of  figures,  I  think  he 
will  be  convinced,  that  the  mind  generally  has  before  it  some 
one  or  more  of  the  effects  of  death,  and  very  rarely  anything 
which  looks  like  a  corpse,  a  funeral,  or  a  grave.  I  remember 
that  one  of  our  missionaries,  just  as  he  was  leaving  his  native 
shores  never  to  return,  said  to  a  friend  at  parting,  "I  have 
buried  my  friends  alive."  Now  evidently  here  was  no  allu- 
sion to  any  external  mode  of  burying,  but  simply  to  one  effect 
of  being  buried,  viz.,  that  he  was  never  to  see  his  friends  again. 
This  all  seems  plain  so  far.  And  as  this  has  been  the  main 
point  with  me,  I  see  not  but  that  I  must  admit  that  the  Scrip- 
tures are  far  from  making  it  clear  that  immersion  is  essential 
to  baptism.     But  as  you  say  that  the  Scriptures  lay  no  great 


34  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

Stress  upon  the  mode  in  which  water  is  applied,  would  it  not 
be  best  for  all  to  practise  immersion,  in  order  to  promote  har- 
mony among  Christians,  by  meeting  tender  consciences  on 
their  own  ground? 

Teacher.  We  have  many  serious  objections  to  immersion, 
which  we  could  state  if  it  were  necessary.  True  christian 
harmony  never  can  be  promoted  by  departing  from  a  mode 
evidently  scriptural,  to  adopt  one  which  has  originated  in  the 
fancy  of  minds  morbidly  inclined  to  lay  an  undue  stress  on  an 
external  rite.  This  method  of  harmonizing  with  those  super- 
stitiously  inclined,  gave  rise  to  the  corruptions  of  the  Romish 
church.  We  object  more  to  immersion  than  to  any  other 
mode  of  applying  water,  because  it  is  further  from  the  main 
design  of  baptism.  The  Scriptures,  as  we  have  seen,  repre- 
sent baptism  as  an  emblem  of  purification  by  the  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  influences  are  uniformly  described 
as  poured  out  upon  us.  Now  when  the  Scriptures  invariably 
represent  the  spiritual  influences  as  sprinkled  or  poured  upon 
the  subject,  for  us  to  put  the  subject  into  the  symbolic  water ^ 
would  seem  to  be  too  great  a  departure  from  the  scriptural 
mode.  We  object  to  immersion,  because  it  is  a  literal  icashing. 
That  is  certainly  the  best  symbol  which  strikes  the  mind  at 
once  as  merely  a  symbol,  and  from  its  very  simplicity  compels 
it  to  pass  beyond  it  to  the  thing  signified.  Not  to  multiply 
objections,  we  could  not  repeat  our  baptism  to  meet  the  de- 
mands of  Immersers  ;  nor  could  we  apply  the  screws  of  close 
communion,  and  unchurch  those  of  our  brethren  who  should 
not  see  fit  to  go  with  us.  So  that,  even  if  we  should  allow 
those  who  have  not  been  baptized  to  be  immersed,  w^e  could 
not  harmonize  with  the  exclusive  principle  of  Immersers. 
This  principle  constitutes  the  very  basis  of  their  denomina- 
tional existence.  It  is  the  ligament  which  binds  them  together. 
And  you  see  it  is  one  of  very  serious  import  and  consequences. 

Inquirer.  True — such  a  principle  ought  not  to  be  adopted, 
but  for  imperious  reasons.     No  one  certainly  can  be  justified 


HINTS    TO   AN    INQUIRER.  SS 

in  adopting  it,  except  on  grounds  which  are  set  clear  from 
every  reasonable  doubt. 

Teacher.  How  strange,  then,  appears  their  position,  and 
how  high  the  arrogance  of  their  pretensions — how  causeless 
the  discords  which  they  thrust  into  the  house  of  God,  when 
it  is  so  evident  that  the  entire  basis  and  structure  of  their 
argument  is  composed  of  nothing  but  guesses! 

Inquirer.   That  is  a  strong  expression. 

Teacher.  But  no  more  strong  than  true.  When,  for  ex- 
ample, Immersers  speak  so  confidently  of  the  apostles  im- 
mersing their  converts,  it  is,  to  say  the  least,  but  a  guess. 

Inquirer.  But  is  it  not  more  than  a  guess  that  John  im- 
mersed his  converts  ? 

John's  baptism. 

Teacher.  You  are  a  little  too  fast.  John  was  not  one  of 
the  apostles,  nor  was  his  baptism  the  Christian  rite.  And 
here,  by  the  way,  you  see  that  a  guess  lies  at  the  very  founda- 
tion of  the  Immerser's  argument.  In  order  to  get  the  sup- 
posed benefit  of  John's  practice,  it  is  guessed  that  John's 
baptism  w^as  Christian  baptism.  And  one  single  passage  of 
Scripture  spoils  this  guess  at  once.  Paul  at  Ephesus,  (Acts 
xix.)  "  finding  certain  disciples,"  said  to  them,  "  Have  ye  re- 
ceived the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye  believed?  And  they  said 
unto  him,  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there  bo 
any  Holy  Ghost.  And  he  said  unto  them,  Unto  what  then 
were  ye  baptized?  And  they  said,  Unto  John's  baptism." 
After  some  instructions,  showing  the  different  intent  of  John's 
baptism,  "  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 
That  the  baptism  which  they  received  from  John  was  not 
Christian  baptism,  appears  from  the  fact  that  they  never  had 
heard  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  of  course  could  not  have  been 
baptized  in  his  name.  And,  furthermore,  it  is  not  to  be  sup- 
posed that  John  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  for  he  would 


36  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

not  have  baptized  Jesus  in  the  name  of  Jesus.  But  to  put  the 
question  beyond  all  doubt,  the  apostle  did  not  consider  them  as 
having  received  the  Christian  rite,  as  is  evident  from  the  fact 
that  he  baptized  them.  It  would  be  superfluous  to  give  other 
reasons.     Here  is  Scripture  against  a  guess  ! 

But  suppose  we  give  them  the  advantage  of  that  guess, 
and,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  allow  that  John's  baptism  is  to 
be  taken  as  a  guide  for  us  : — how  do  they  arrive  at  the  cer- 
tainty that  he  immersed  ?  In  every  step  of  their  argument 
they  proceed  by  guesses.  They  say  that  he  immersed,  be- 
cause the  word  baptize  means  to  immerse,  and  nothing  else. 
But  we  have  already  proved  that  this  word  has  various  shades 
of  meaning,  and  does  not  define  any  particular  way  of  apply- 
ing water.  Here  then  is  one  guess.  They  say  that  he  im- 
mersed, because  he  went  to  the  Jordan  for  this  purpose.  But 
were  there  no  other  reasons  for  resorting  thither  ?  If  we  could 
conceive  of  no  necessity  for  his  seeking  some  such  place  as 
the  region  about  Jordan,  except  for  the  convenience  of  im- 
mersing, then  the  inference  which  Immersers  draw  from  this 
circumstance  would  appear  more  plausible.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  there  was  an  equal  necessity  for  the  selection  of  such  a 
place,  v)hether  he  baptized  by  affusion  or  immersion,  then  this 
circumstance  proves  nothing  in  favor  of  any  particular  mode 
of  baptism.  Let  us  now  examine  the  facts.  John  was  a 
field  preacher,  and  we  read  that  he  came  preaching  in  the 
wilderness.  The  immense  muHitudes  that  flocked  together  to 
hear  him,  made  it  necessary  for  him  to  withdraw  from  the  nar- 
row streets  of  the  cities,  to  the  open  country  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Jordan  ;  and  that,  being  the  place  of  his  preaching, 
would  naturally  be  the  place  of  his  baptizing.  You  see,  then, 
that  necessity  compelled  him  to  select  an  open  country, /or  other 
purposes  than  immersion.  Who  can  say  that  those  other  pur- 
poses were  not  the  sole  cause  of  his  withdrawing  from  the 
cities  and  villages'?  This  is  at  least  possible.  And  if  it  be 
only  possible,  the  Immersei's  certainty  is  instantly  converted 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  37 

into  a  guess.  But  we  contend  that  it  is  highly  probable. 
Nay,  there  are  other  circumstances  connected  with  John's 
ministry,  which  we  are  bound  to  take  into  consideration,  and 
which  render  the  guess  that  he  immersed  perfectly  incredible. 
We  read  that  "  there  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem,  and  all  Ju- 
dea,  and  oil  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  and  tcere  baptized  of 
him.^'  If  in  a  papal  country  some  new  ceremony  should  come 
into  vogue,  attracting  that  absorbing  interest  which  John's 
baptism  did,  few  of  the  people  would  fail  to  rush  forward  with 
the  multitude,  to  receive  the  advantage  of  it.  The  Jews  were 
even  more  disposed  to  value  outward  cerenionies  than  the  Papists 
It  is  therefore  certain  that  immense  multitudes  flocked  to 
John's  baptism.  The  passage  of  Scripture  which  I  have 
quoted,  interpreted  by  the  circumstances,  cannot  import  less 
than  500,000.  Suppose  that  he  immersed  one  every  minute — 
to  have  immersed  500,000,  he  must  have  stood  breast  high  in 
the  water,  twelve  hours  every  day,  for  nearly  two  whole  years. 
But  his  ministry  was  little  more  than  a  year  and  a  half,  and 
during  part  of  that  time  he  was  in  prison !  Where  is  the 
man,  however,  who  could  remain  in  the  water  twelve  hours 
every  day  successively,  for  even  one  year?  or  where  is  the 
man  who  could  immerse  sixty  persons  an  hour,  for  twelve 
hours  in  succession,  and  repeat  the  process  every  day  for  a 
year?  We  read  (John  x.  41)  that  "John  did  no  miracle." 
But  if  John  did  this,  his  entire  life  was  one  prodigious  mira- 
cle !  Perhaps  you  may  say  that  500,000  are  more,  probably, 
than  went  out  to  him.  Very  well — take  the  smallest  number 
which,  in  your  opinion,  the  record  will  warrant,  and  you  will 
not  escape  from  this  difficulty.  When  we  consider  the  brief 
duration  of  John's  ministry,  the  time  he  must  necessarily  have 
spent  in  preacliing,  his  imprisonment,  the  time  needed  to  re- 
cruit his  exhausted  bodily  powers,  the  days  of  the  year  when 
he  could  not  have  immersed,  &c.,  we  are  fully  satisfied  that 
he  could  not  have  immersed  80,000.  It  is,  therefore,  wholly 
incredible,  that  the  immense  multitudes  which  he  baptized 
4 


38  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

could  have  been  immersed.  If  he  baptized,  however,  aecorcf- 
ing  to  the  custom  of  the  priests,  and  took  a  bunch  of  hyssop 
and  sprinkled  the  people  as  they  passed  him,  he  could  have 
done  it. 

Now,  viewing  all  the  circumstances  in  the  case,  where  is 
the  certainty  that  John  immersed  ?  The  confident  assumption 
of  Iramersers  in  regard  to  his  practice,  is  a  guess  agamst,  to 
say  the  least,  the  strongest  probability. 

Inquirer.  But  did  not  John  baptize  in  Enon,  because  there 
was  much  water  there  ? 

Teacher.  It  requires  one  guess  to  establish  the  conclusion 
that  he  went  there ybr  the  sake  of  immersing.  We  say  that 
there  are  other  and  more  probable  reasons  why  he  chose  that 
place.  He  would  not  need  much  water,  or  "  many  waters," 
i.  e.  many  streams  or  springs  of  water,  (as  it  is  in  the  Greiek,) 
for  immersing.  For  that  purpose,  one  stream  w^ould  suffice. 
Why  did  he  need  many  streams  1  why  was  it  necessary  for 
him  to  select  a  place  watered  with  many  springs  1  This  is  the 
question  which  presses  upon  us  for  an  answer.  Now  it  is 
certain  that  he  could  not  have  chosen  such  a  place  for  immer- 
sion. The  simple  fact  that  the  word  is  plural ,  {many  streams 
or  springs,)  decides  this  point.  One  man  could  not  immerse 
in  many  places  at  once,  nor  could  he  need  many  rivulets  or 
springs  for  that  purpose.  Why,  then,  must  this  field  preacher 
go  to  Enon,  a  place  well  supplied  with  springs'?  Because  it 
was  no  easy  matter  to  find  water  in  that  region,  to  accommo- 
date the  thousands  that  came  to  him,  with  their  camels  and 
other  beasts.  Enon,  furnished  with  many  springs,  afforded 
rare  conveniences  for  a  camp-meeting,  assembled  to  remain 
many  days.  So  that,  in  whatever  way  he  baptized,  there  were 
other  and  more  important  reasons,  for  his  selection  of  that  place j 
than  the  convenience  of  immersing. 

Inquirer.  I  see  clearly,  that  to  base  the  duty  of  immer- 
sion on  such  a  foundation,  is  to  base  it  on  a  guess.  We 
surely  cannot  maintain  that  a  man  is  influenced  in  the  choice 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  39 

of  a  spot  by  one  particular  reason,  when  other  and  letter 
reasons  are  known  to  exist. 

Teacher.  And  when,  too,  that  particular  reason,  as  in 
this  case,  does  not  answer  the  question  why  he  needed  many 
springs  or  streams. 

Inquirer.  Very  true.  But  is  there  not  a  better  founda- 
tion for  the  assumption  that  our  Saviour  was  baptized  by 
immersion  ? 

Christ's  baptism. 

Teacher.  It  requires  one  guess  to  reach  the  conclusion 
that  Christ  is  our  example  in  baptism.  John's  baptism  was  a 
Jeioish  rite,  under  the  old  dispensation.  What  have  loe  to  do 
with  it  ?  Before  we  oan  feel  bound  ourselves  to  follow  Christ 
in  the  observance  of  a  Jewish  ceremony,  or  at  liberty  to  im- 
pose any  such  duty  upon  others,  we  must  have  at  least  some 
•proof  that  he  designed  this  act  for  our  imitation.  But  not  the 
shadow  of  such  proof  exists.  On  the  contrary,  the  guess  of 
Immersers  implies  such  a  gross  misconception  of  the  design  of 
our  Saviour's  baptism, — a  misconception  so  plainly  in  the  face 
of  Scripture, — that  when  we  hear  them  speak  with  so  much 
confidence  of  "  Jordan^ s  floods,"  and  of  ^ '  following  Christ 
into  the  water,"  we  literally  blush  for  them.  Christ^ s  hap- 
tism  ivas  his  introduction  into  the  friesVs  office.  The  Mosaic 
law  required  every  priest,  when  thirty  years  of  age,  (Num. 
iv.  3,  23,  30,  35,)  to  be  consecrated  to  their  sacred  work  by 
being  washed  with  water.  (Lev.  viii.  6.)  As  a  symbol  of 
the  anointing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  were  also  anointed  with 
oil.  Now  mark  the  coincidences.  When  Jesus  came  to 
John,  he  was  about  thirty  years  old,  (Luke  iii.  21,  23,)  and 
was  just  about  entering  upon  his  office  as  priest ; — after  bap- 
tism he  was  anointed  by  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
commenced  immediately  his  public  duties.  The  apostle  Paul 
tells  us,  (Heb.  v.  5,)  that  Christ  did  not  glorify  himself  to  be 
made  a  high  priest,  but  he  that  said  unto  him,  "Thou  art 


40  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

my  Son ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  Here  it  is  ex- 
pressly said  that  the  Father  glorified  Mm  hy  making  him  a 
high  priest,  when  he  said,  "  Thou  art  my  Son ;  this  day 
have  I  begotten  thee."  And  this  was  said  at  his  baptism. 
(Matt.  iii.  17.) 

An  examination  of  Scripture  compels  us,  either  to  admit  that 
this  VMS  the  design  of  Chrises  baptism,  or  deny  that  he  fulfilled 
all  righteousness.  His  words  to  John  (Matt.  iii.  15)  imply 
that  some  law  then  existing,  and  which  he  was  bound  to  ful- 
fil, made  it  proper  for  him  to  be  baptized.  But  what  law? 
Not  the  law  of  Christian  baptism,  for  the  rite  itself  did  not  at 
that  time  exist.  Not  the  moral  law,  for  Christ  was  no  sin- 
ner :  and  no  violations  of  that  code  made  it  necessary  for  him 
to  receive  the  baptism  of  repentance.  To  what  law  then  did 
he  refer?  Unquestionably  to  the  ceremonial  law,  which  is 
nothing  to  us,  but  which  he  was  born  under,  and  bound  to 
fulfil.  There  was  something  in  that  law,  as  his  own  words 
imply,  which  made  it  necessary  for  him  to  be  baptized.  To 
that  law,  therefore,  we  must  go  for  instruction,  if  we  would 
obtain  scriptural  views  o^  the  design  of  his  baptism.  Now  in 
that  code  we  find  a  statute  requiring  every  priest  to  be  con- 
secrated by  the  washing  of  water ;  and  as  this  is  the  only 
statute  in  the  code,  which  made  it  necessary  for  him  to  be  bap- 
tized, there  is  no  room  to  doubt  that  this  is  the  statute  to 
which  he  referred.  If  he  did  not  refer  to  this  statute,  he 
referred  to  nothing,  and  his  reply  to  John  was  without  any 
meaning  whatever.  And,  furthermore,  if  he  was  not  baptized 
in  obedience  to  this  statute,  here  was  one  statute  wliich  was 
not  obeyed  by  him,  and  consequently  he  did  not  "  fulfil  all 
righteousness."  We  are,  therefore,  brought  to  this  alterna- 
native,  viz.,  either  to  admit  that  Christ  our  Priest  was  bap- 
tized in  obedience  to  this  statute,  or  to  deny  that  he  fulfilled 
all  righteousness ! 

Inquirer.  These  considerations  convince  me  that  your 
views  in  regard  to  the  design  of  Christ's  baptism  are  correct 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  41 

So  far  you  have  Scripture  on  your  side,  and  Immersers  nothing 
hwXfanaj.  It  is  really  matter  of  wonder  with  me,  that  intel- 
ligent Christians  can  be  so  positive,  where  their  premises  are 
so  perfectly  fanciful,  and  where  Scripture  is  so  decidedly 
against  them.  But  admitting  your  views  in  regard  to  the 
design  of  Christ's  baptism,  was  he  not  immersed"?  And 
did  not  the  apostles  adopt  the  mode  in  v/hich  he  was  bap- 
tized ? 

Teacher.     On  what  do  you  base  the  certainty  that  he  was 
immersed  ? 

Inquirer.     We  read  that  "  when  he  was  baptized  he  went 
up  straightway  out  of  the  water." 

Teacher.  Observe,  this  was  something  which  Christ  did 
after  his  baptism,  and  was  no  part  of  that  ordinance.  The 
assumption  of  Immersers  is  founded  upon  a  mistake  of  the 
import  of  the  preposition  ^^  out  ofy  The  true  sense  of  the 
Greek  preposition  is, from,  not  "out  of;"  and  it  marks  the 
place  from  which  he  went  up,  without  at  all  suggesting  the 
idea  that  Jesus  had  been  in  the  water.  The  following  trans- 
lation gives  the  exact  meaning  of  the  original, — "  he  went  up 
without  delay  from  the  water."  Now  what  is  there  here  so 
conclusive  in  favor  of  immersion  1  As  John  was  preaching 
close  by  the  Jordan,  he  would  go  of  course  to  the  river  to 
baptize.  And  whether  he  performed  the  ceremony  by  immer- 
sion, sprinkling,  or  pouring,  there  was  an  equal  necessity  for 
descending  the  hanks  to  the  stream,  and  of  ascending  the  banks 
from  the  stream.  Shall  that,  therefore,  which  our  Saviour 
must  have  done,  whether  he  was  baptized  by  immersion  or 
affusion,  be  taken  as  proof  that  he  was  immersed?  The 
Methodist  elder  sometimes  stands  in  the  river,  and  pours  the 
water  upon  the  heads  or  faces  of  his  converts.  John  might 
have  taken  his  station  in  the  river,  for  convenience,  as  the 
number  to  be  baptized  was  very  great,  and  have  administered 
the  rite  in  the  same  way. 
4* 


42  HINTS    TO   AN    INQUIRER. 

Inquirer.  I  see  that  this  circumstance  leaves  the  manneT 
of  our  Saviour's  baptism  an  uncertainty ; — but  still  is  it  not 
more  'probable  that  he  was  immersed  1 

Teacher.  Probabilities  will  not  answer  the  Immersers 
any  good  purpose.  Surely  that  exclusive  principle,  which 
unchurches  two  thirds  of  the  disciples  of  Christ,  can  never  be 
justified,  on  the  ground  of  a  slender  probability.  In  this 
instance,  however,  probabilities  are  against  them.  There  is 
in  fact  the  greatest  degree  of  certainty  that  our  Saviour  was 
baptized  by  affusion.  We  have  already  proved  that  his  bap- 
tism was  introductory  to  his  priest's  office.  The  ceremonial 
law  required  that  the  washing  of  the  priests,  (Lev.  viii.  6,) 
when  consecrated  to  their  office,  should  be  performed  by 
sprinkling.  (Num.  viii.  7.)  According  to  the  Scriptures, 
therefore,  Jesus,  our  Priest,  was  sprinkled. 

Inquirer.  If  his  baptism  was  designed  as  his  consecra- 
tion to  his  priestly  office,  it  is  certainly  more  scriptural  to 
believe  that  he  was  sprinkled.  It  would  hardly  benefit 
Immersers  to  appeal  to  Christ's  example  in  this  particu- 
lar. 

Teacher.  His  example,  so  far  as  it  touches  the  mode  of 
baptism,  is  wholly  in  our  favor.  And  if  the  apostles  copied 
the  mode  in  which  he  was  baptized,  we  need  go  no  farther 
for  proof  that  they  practised  affusion  or  sprinkling. 

As  we  are  now  about  to  leave  John's  baptism,  carefully 
review  the  ground  already  travelled  over,  and  in  view  of  the 
argument  thus  far  developed,  decide  whether  such  a  degree 
of  certainty  belongs  to  the  side  of  the  question  espoused  by 
Immersers,  that  they  can  be  justified  in  disowning  numerous 
churches  of  Christ,  and  refusing  to  eat  the  Lord's  Supper 
with  thousands  of  their  brethren  in  Christ,  merely  because 
they  have  not  received  the  waters  of  baptism  in  their  par- 
ticular way !  !  ! 

Remember  that  this  controversy  touches  more  than  the 


HINTS    TO    AN   INQUIRER.  43 

simple  question  of  immersion.  It  is  frequently  said  to  the 
young  convert,  by  those  who  practise  immersion,  "Join  us, 
and  you  will  be  sure  to  be  right ;  if  the  way  in  which  the 
water  is  applied  is  not  essential,  you  will  be  right ;  and 
if  it  is  essential,  you  will  be  right."  But  stop — there  is  a 
deception  lurking  here.  If  you  join  with  immersers,  you 
countenance  their  exclusive  principle;  and  are  you  sura  that 
that  will  be  right  ?  Are  you  sure  that  it  will  be  pleasing  to 
the  great  Head  of  the  Church,  for  you  to  give  the  sanction 
of  your  example  to  a  principle  so  contracted,  so  contrary 
to  the  spirit  of  the  age,  so  withering  to  some  of  the  best 
feelings  of  the  regenerated  heart — a  principle  which  the  light 
and  the  fire  of  an  approaching  day  shall  consume  1 

Inquirer.  I  cannot  but  believe,  that  it  is  our  Lord's 
will,  that  his  table  should  be  the  place,  where  all  his  true 
followers  should  merge  their  minor  differences  in  mutual 
love.  It  would  seem  as  if  this  sacred  spot  should  be  com- 
mon ground.  To  give  this  table  a  sectarian  character,  or  to 
make  it  an  occasion  of  strife,  is  confessedly,  a  very  serious 
matter.  These  are  evils  to  he  avoided  if  possible ;  and,  there- 
fore, we  must  have  the  most  satisfactory  proof  XhdX  we  are 
acting  in  obedience  to  the  commands  of  Christ,  before  we  can 
lawfully  embrace  any  principle  manifestly  tending  to  such 
results.  Such  proof  I  have  not  yet  seen  in  favor  of  immer- 
sion. The  evidence  thus  far  preponderates  on  the  opposite 
side. 

Teacher.  We  have  the  advantage  of  Immersers  in  this 
argument.  They  embrace  an  exclusive  principle,  on  the 
ground  that  immersion  is  the  only  baptism.  The  burden 
of  proof,  therefore,  is  with  them.  They  must  prove  con- 
clusively that  it  is  the  only  baptism.  K  there  remains  any 
room  for  doubting  the  conclusiveness  of  their  argument, 
it  wholly  fails  ;  for  who  can  believe  for  a  moment  that  he  is 
bound  to  separate  from  his  Christian  brethren,  to  make  the 


44 


HINTS    TO   AN    INQUIRER. 


Lord's  table  sectarian,  and  to  countenance  schisms,  so  long 
as  there  exists  a  reasonable  doubt  lohether  the  Lord  requires  him 
to  do  it  ? 

Inquirer.  True — ^very  true.  But  I  would  inquire  whe- 
ther the  cases  of  Christian  baptism  in  the  New  Testament 
are  not  clearly  in  favor  of  immersion  ? 


c)aiuh/  aao  tne  (Pimum. 


CHAPTER   V. 

CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM BAPTISM  ON  THE  DAY  OF  PENTECOST. 

Teacher.  I  see  that  you  very  properly  make  a  distinction 
between  John's  baptism  and  Christian  baptism.  But  not  to 
detain  the  subject,  what  example  of  apostolic  baptism  shall 
we  first  examine  ? 

Inquirer.  If  you  please,  the  baptisms  of  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost. 

Teacher.  Please  read  the  account,  (Acts  ii.)  and  point 
out  to  me  the  proof  \\val  the  converts  were  immersed.  It  is 
not  found  in  any  tendency  of  the  apostles  that  way,  for  they 
had  been  educated  to  regard  sprinkling  as  sufficient  for  cere- 
monial purification,  and  from  early  childhood  had  seen  the 
leper,  and  the  Levites,  and  indeed  the  vessels  of  the  temple 
cleansed  by  sprinkling.  Why  should  men  so  educated  have 
deemed  sprinkling  or  pouring  an  improper  symbol  of  purifica- 
tion by  the  Spirit,  under  the  gospel,  especially  when  they 
could  not  have  failed  to  notice  that  their  scriptures  uniformly 
described  his  influence  as  poured  out  upon  wen  ? 

Inquirer.  If  the  influence  of  their  Jewish  education  was 
not  counteracted  by  some  command  of  Christ,  they  baptized 
unquestionably  by  pouring  or  sprinkling.  And  that  any  such 
command  was  given  to  them,  by  the  great  Head  of  the  Church, 
we  are  not  obliged  to  believe  without  proof. 

Teacher.  Do  you  find  the  proof  that  is  needed  in  the 
Pentecostal  baptisms? 

Inquirer.    I  admit  that  I  see  nothing  which  decides  in 


46  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

favor  of  immersion.  The  inspired  record  merely  states  that 
the  converts  vi^ere  baptized :  but  it  gives  no  intimation  that 
they  left  the  place  where  they  were  assembled ;  nor  tnat 
those  preparations  were  made,  which  the  immersion  of  a 
promiscuous  multitude,  consisting  of  males  and  females, 
always  renders  necessary. 

Teacher.  This  is  a  most  decisive  case,  my  friend,  against 
immersion.  On  that  memorable  occasion,  in  the  same  day, 
(Acts  ii.  41,)  about  3000  persons  were  baptized  and  added  to 
the  church.  Among  the  converts  were  Parthians  and  Modes, 
and  Egyptians,  &c.  (vs.  9—11.)  The  assumption  that  they 
were  immersed  is  not  only  a  pure  guess,  but  it  hangs  by  a 
string  of  most  absurd  guesses  ! 

Consider  the  facts.  The  30oO  must  have  been  baptized  in 
Jerusalem,  or  in  some  other  place. 

If  we  suppose  that  they  were  baptized  in  Jerusalem,  (the 
only  supposition  which  the  record  warrants,)  mountain- 
ous difficulties  lie  in  the  way  of  the  Immersers'  guess 
These  events  took  place  during  the  Pentecost,  or  about  the 
latter  part  of  the  month  of  May,  in  Palestine  a  time  of 
drought.  In  that  country,  from  the  middle  of  April  to  the 
middle  of  September,  it  neither  rains  nor  thunders.  In  the 
beginning  of  harvest,  a  cloud  is  occasionally  seen  in  the  morn- 
ing but  it  vanishes  away  ;  and  hence  the  beautiful  allusion  of 
Hosea,  where  he  compares  the  goodness  of  Ephraim  to  the 
morning  cloud.  (Hosea  vi.  4.)  Now  the  brook  Cedron  was 
dry,  except  in  the  rainy  part  of  the  year  ;  and,  therefore,  at 
this  time  the  footman  might  have  walked  across  its  channel 
with  unwet  sandal.  The  city  afforded  no  other  brooks  or 
stream  suited  to  the  purposes  of  immersion.  If  there  were 
baths,  the  Jews  would  sooner  have  opened  them  to  swine,  than 
to  the  followers  of  the  hated  Nazarene.  Where  then  did  the 
apostles  find  a  convenient  place  in  Jerusalem,  to  immerse  in 
one  day  3000  converts?  This  question  presents  a  serious 
difficulty.     J3ut  this  is  not  the  only  difficulty.     Suppose  the 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIREil.  47 

apostles  succeeded  in  obtaining  a  suitable  place,  how  could 
tb.ey  have  immersed  3000  in  so  short  a  time?  When  the 
wonders  of  that  memorable  day  began  to  attract  notice,  it 
was  already  nine  o'clock.  If  we  make  some  little  allowance 
for  prayers,  preaching,  conversation  with  the  candidates,  con- 
fessions of  faith,  and  for  making  the  preparations  ivhich  immer- 
sion, even  on  a  much  smaller  scale,  always  demands,  it  must 
have  been  at  least  four  o'clock,  P.  M.,  before  they  could  have 
commenced  baptizing.  To  be  satisfied  that  this  is  not  an  ex- 
travagant calculation,  we  need  only  to  ask  ourselves,  how 
many  hours  would  be  found  necessary  by  Immersers  in  this 
city  (where  every  convenience  is  near  at  hand,)  for  making 
decent  preparations  for  the  immersion  of  3000  people,  stran- 
gers foreigners,  suddenly  converted  1  It  would  require 
miraculous  despatch,  to  get  through  with  all  the  essential 
preliminaries  in  less  than  half  a  day  !  Now  the  apostles  had 
250  persons  each.  If  we  suppose  them  to  have  continued 
immersing,  without  any  cessation,  and  at  the  rate  of  one  a 
minute,  the  day  must  have  ended  before  their  task  was  done  ! 
But  there  is  still  another  difficulty.  As  the  converts  were 
strangers,  embracing  loth  sexes,  where  did  they  get  changes 
of  apparel?  Who  provided  them  with  immersing  gowns? 
Did  they  borrow  them  on  the  spot  ?  Or  if  obliged  to  search 
Jerusalem,  running  hither  and  thither,  for  these  conveniences, 
how  much  of  the  day  did  this  consume?  Or  were  they 
plunged  all  over  in  water  without  any  change  of  raiment? 
Or  did  they  expose  their  naked  persons  to  one  another,  and 
to  gazing  spectators,  and  thus  violate  the  natural  sense  of 
shame  ? 

In  view  of  these  difficulties,  what  monstrous  guesses  are 
necessary  on  the  part  of  Immersers  !  They  must,  in  the  first 
place,  guess  that  the  apostles  immersed  the  3000 ;  and  in 
order  to  maintain  this  guess,  they  must  guess  that  they  found 
a  convenient  stream  or  brook  in  Jerusalem  for  immersing  this 
immense  multitude,  when,  from  the  known  geography  and 


48  HINTS    TO   AN    INQUIRER. 

climate  of  the  country,  it  is  evident  that  no  such  stream  could 
have  been  found — or  they  must  guess  that  they  had  access  to 
baths,  (when  the  very  swine  would  sooner  have  gained  ad- 
mittance,) and  guess  that  there  w^ere  baths  enough  to  ac- 
commodate 3000.  And  when  they  have  guessed  out  a 
suitable  place  for  immersion,  they  must  guess  that  the  apostles 
immersed  250  persons  each,  in  a  few  hours,  giving  them  at 
the  same  time  aU  needful  instruction — and  guess  that  they 
changed  their  apparel  in  the  open  air,  men  and  women ;  or 
guess  that  they  were  accommodated  with  dressing  chambers  ; 
or  guess  that  they  stripped  themselves,  and  exposed  their 
naked  persons  while  going  doivn  to  the  water  and  coming 
from  it; — or  guess  that  they  were  plunged  just  as  they  were, 
and  went  about  after  the  ceremony  wdth  their  garments  cleav- 
ing to  their  skin,  and  dripping  upon  the  pavement  of  the  city  ! 

But  suppose  they  were  baptized  in  some  other  place.  Ob- 
serve, this  is  itself  a  guess.  The  inspired  narrative  gives  no 
hint  of  their  leaving  the  city,  or  even  the  place  where  they  were 
assembled.  Such  an  army  of  converts  leaving  the  city,  is  a 
circumstance  which  the  historian  could  not  have  failed  to 
notice.  But  w^hat  is  gained  by  this  guess?  The  nearest 
river  (the  Jordan)  was  distant  more  than  20  miles.  As  it 
was  not  a  day  of  omnibuses  and  railroads,  how  could  that 
promiscuous  host  have  reached  the  river  in  time  for  the  cere- 
mony ?  In  whatever  place  we  suppose  the  immersing  to  have 
been  performed,  we  have  the  same  guessing  as  to  a  change 
of  apparel,  &c.  &c.  And  the  farther  we  remove  it  from  the 
city,  and  from  the  scene  of  the  apostles'  preaching,  the  greater 
the  difficulty  iji  regard  to  time. 

Inquirer.  I  must  confess  that  I  am  not  prepared  to  em- 
brace a  supposition  which  hangs  by  such  a  string  of  guesses ; 
and  much  less  to  consider  others,  who  find  it  impossible  to 
guess  quite  so  much  where  the  Scriptures  give  no  favorable 
data,  as  aliens  from  the  commonw'ealth  of  Israel,  and  as 
worthy  of  banishment  from  the  Lord's  table. 


HINTS'   TO    AN    INQUIRER.  49 

Teacher.  And  yet,  on  this  shadowy  basis,  Immersers  claim 
the  exclusive  right  to  that  table  !  One  of  their  ministers  in 
this  city,  concluded  a  series  of  discourses,  which  he  has  re- 
cently been  preaching  on  immersion,  in  the  following  strain  : 
— "  I  have  a  right  to  go  to  any  evangelical  church  [meaning 
other  than  immersing  churches]  where  the  Lord's  table  is 
spread,  and  partake  of  the  symbols,  and  no  man  may  lawfully 
forbid  me  ; — nay  more  ;  I  have  a  right  to  say  to  the  commu- 
nicants, you  are  intruders  here  ; — nay,  more  than  this,  I  have 
a  right  to  say  to  that  minister  who  officiates  at  the  table, 
Stand  aside, — thou  hast  no  right  to  administer  this  ordi- 
nance ! ' '  Such  a  peroration  excites  only  our  pity. 
5 


CH  APTE  R    VI. 

BAPTISM  OF  THE   ETHIOPIAN   EUNUCH OF   THE   PHILIPPIAN 

JAILER OF    SAUL — OF  CORNELIUS. 

Inquirer.  Previous  to  this  examination,  I  have  attached 
much  importance  to  the  case  of  the  baptism  of  the  Ethiopian 
eunuch. 

Teacher.  Please  turn  to  that  case,  (Acts  viii.  36,)  and 
point  out  what  you  have  considered  as  determining  with  cer- 
tainty that  he  was  immersed. 

Inquirer.  I  find  that  this  case  wears  a  new  aspect ;  for  I 
really  can  find  nothing  in  it,  except  that  it  is  said  that  both 
Philip  and  the  eunuch  went  into  the  water. 

Teacher.  It  may  be  well  still  to  examine  this  point  a  little. 
Mark  this,  that  the  phrase  "  went  down,"  &c.,  does  not  de- 
note the  baptismal  act.  They  went  down,  both  Philip  and 
the  eunuch,  but  both  were  not  baptized.  So  that  the  going 
down  was  only  a  preparatory  act,  and  the  coming  up  out  of 
the  water  was  something  done  after  the  baptism,  and  not  the 
baptism  itself.  This  is  what  they  ivould  have  done,  whether 
they  baptized  by  affusion  or  irmnersion. 

You  must  take  into  view  the  circumstances  and  customs  of 
the  country.  It  is  well  known  that  Orientals  were  accustomed 
to  step  into  the  water  on  all  occasions,  whether  of  washing, 
or  taking  up  water  in  their  hands  to  drink,  or  the  like.  Their 
dress  about  their  feet  was  such  as  not  to  hinder  the  custom, 
and  their  warm  climate  made  it  pleasant.  As  they  were 
moving  on  in  a  journey,  they  came  to  "  some  water"  [for 
that  is  the  literal  rendering.]  For  baptism  they  must  go  to 
the  water  ;  as  that  could  be  done  more  conveniently  than  water 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  51 

could  be  brought  to  them.  It  was  also  natural  and  agreea- 
ble to  the  habits  of  the  people.  Now  the  question  is,  whether 
their  doing  what  they  naturally  would  do  to  baptize  by  pour- 
ing, proves  that  they  baptized  another  loay,  and  by  immersion  ? 
If  there  were  no  occasion  for  stepping  into  the  water,  except 
the  convenience  of  immersion,  there  would  be  some  force  in 
the  Immersers'  inference.  But  when  there  was  an  actual 
necessity  for  going  into  the  water,  in  order  to  baptize  in  any 
way,  their  going  into  it  can  be  no  proof  that  they  baptized  by 
immersion. 

We  have  an  actual  occurrence,  which  capitally  illustrates 
this  point.  A  INIethodist  minister  and  an  Immerser,  a  few 
weeks  since,  in  Charlestown,  were  baptizing  at  the  same  time 
and  place,  by  the  water's  side.  The  Immerser  took  his  can- 
didate, and  while  going  down,  said,  "And  they  went  down 
into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch" — and  after  im- 
mersing him,  he  came  out,  saying  by  the  way,  "And  they 
came  up  out  of  the  water."  Some  of  the  spectators  doubtless 
listened  thus  far,  as  to  oracular  proof  of  the  necessity  of  im- 
mersion. Next  the  Methodist  minister  took  his  candidate, 
and  went  down  into  the  water,  repeating  the  same  words — "And 
they  went  down  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch," 
and  then  took  water  and  poured  it  upon  his  candidate,  (ac- 
cording to  the  frequent  practice  of  that  sect,)  and  came  up 
repeating — "Anrf  they  came  up  out  of  the  ivater,  both  Philip 
and  the  eunuch.^''  So  it  was  seen  that  the  words  of  Scripture 
were  as  pertinent  to  one  case  as  the  other,  and  that  one  may 
do  all  that  Philip  is  said  to  have  done,  without  immersing. 

As  the  Immersers'  argument  rests  so  much  on  the  fancied 
import  of  the  words  "  into"  and  "  out  of,"  it  may  be  proper 
here  to  introduce  the  testimony  of  Prof.  Ripley,  of  the  New- 
ton Theological  Seminary.  In  his  note  on  Matt.  iii.  16,  he 
says: — "Ow^  of  the  water — The  preposition  here  translated 
"  out  of,^"*  has  the  more  general  signification  of  the  wordyVom; 
and  would  be  suitable,  whether  the  sacred  writer  meant  to 


52  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

say  that  Jesus  came  out  from  the  water,  i.  e.  from  within  the 
river  to  the  shore ;  or,  that  he  came  from  the  water,  i.  e. 
retired  from  the  bank  of  the  river  to  another  place.  This 
preposition,  then,  in  itself  furnishes  no  decision  in  respect  to 
the  manner  of  the  ordinance."  Here  is  an  Immerser's  conces- 
sion, that  the  preposition  fixes  nothing.  But  the  verb  [av«^», 
*'  went  up"]  does  of  itself  settle  the  question.  If  immersion 
had  been  the  way,  that  verb  should  have  had  the  force  of 
emerge.  But  it  is  incapable  of  such  a  meaning  ;  and  we  chal- 
lenge any  one,  out  of  the  numerous  instances  of  its  use,  to  find 
one  where  it  has  this  meaning. 

Inquirer.  It  is  one  of  the  plainest  cases,  that  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  make  it  certain  that  the  eunuch  was  immersed. 

Teacher.  That  is  enough  for  our  purpose.  If  the  Bible 
has  left  the  mode  of  applying  water  in  uncertainty,  no  man 
has  a  right  to  require  me  to  act  as  though  it  were  certain  that 
immersion  is  the  mode.  No  one  is  justified  in  shutting  me 
from  the  Lord's  table,  because  my  guesses  as  to  the  mode  will 
not  run  in  the  same  line  with  his.  But  the  probahilities  are,  in 
fact,  against  immersion  in  this  case.  They  took  the  first  water 
which  they  found.  It  was  no  river ;  for  if  it  was,  the  narra- 
tive would  have  said  so.  But  it  only  says,  they  came  to 
'^some  water,^^  [n  vS'ooq,]  just  as  it  would  have  said  if  it  were 
the  smallest  quantity,  and  just  as  it  would  not  have  said  if  it 
were  a  river.  Both  geography  and  history  show  that  it  was 
not  a  river.  Hierome,  who  lived  several  years  at  Jerusa- 
lem, and  was  well  acquainted  with  the  country,  reports  that 
about  twenty  miles  from  Jerusalem,  in  the  road  towards  He- 
bron, there  is  a  village  called  Bethsoron,  near  to  which  is  a 
mountain,  at  the  bottom  or  foot  whereof  is  a  spring,  where  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  relate  that  the  Ethiopian  was  baptized  by 
Philip.  Eusebius  reported  the  same.  Beda,  some  hundred 
years  afterwards,  reported  the  said  village  then  remaining, 
consenting  with  Eusebius  and  Hierome  as  to  the  baptism  of 
the  eunuch  in  the  spring.     A  modern  traveller,  Sandys,  men- 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  53 

tions  this  passage  by  Bethsoron,  where  he  says — "  We  saw 
the  fountain  whose  pleasant  waters  are  forthwith  drunk  up  by 
the  earth  that  produced  them.  There  they  say  Philip  bap- 
tized the  eunuch  ;  whereupon  it  retains  the  name  of  the  Ethi- 
opian fountain," 

Now  on  which  side  are  the  probabilities?  Geography,  his- 
tory, tradition  and  the  inspired  narrative  are  silent  as  to  any 
river  existing  where  they  were.  But  that  there  was  this 
spring,  or  fountain,  standing  alone  in  a  dry  and  desert  land,  we 
have  this  positive  evidence.  In  view  of  all  the  facts  of  the 
case,  see  how  much  the  Immerser  has  to  rely  on  guesses  for 
the  substance  of  his  argument  from  this  case,  so  much  quoted 
by  him.  He  guesses  that  Philip  immersed  the  eunuch  ;  and 
to  support  this  guess,  he  must  guess  again  that  there  was  a 
river  where  we  know  there  was  none.  Then  he  must  guess 
that  the  eunuch  exposed  his  nakedness  to  Philip,  and  Philip 
exposed  his  nakedness  to  the  eunuch — or  he  must  guess  that 
Philip,  travelling  on  foot,  had  come  provided  with  a  change 
of  garments,  contrary  to  Christ's  advice  to  his  first  missiona- 
ries, not  to  take  two  coats  apiece — or  he  must  guess  that 
Philip  went  in  for  immersing  with  his  only  dress  on. 

Inquirer.  It  seems  clear,  that  either  of  these  assumptions 
is  a  guess  against  probability.  Besides,  Philip  was  caught 
away  ' '  immediately ' '  after  the  baptism  ;  and  it  is  not  likely 
that  he  was  caught  away  either  naked  or  dripping  wet,  and 
set  down  in  the  streets  of  the  city  of  Azotus ;  whence,  we 
read,  he  went  forth  preaching  the  gospel.  It  is  manifestly 
unjust  to  exclude  one  from  the  Lord's  table  because  he  cannot 
join  in  such  a  guess.  But  as  this  is  an  important  case,  can 
we  not  gather  light  from  some  other  Scripture,  which  may 
indicate  that  Philip  did  or  did  not  practise  immersion  ? 

Teacher.  Yes.  The  very  passage  which  the  eunuch  was 
reading,  Isa.  lii.  15,  says — "He  shall  5p-mZ;/e  many  nations."* 

*  The  Hebrew  word,  yazza,  translated  shall  sprinkle,  occurs  in  sev- 
eral other  passages,  in  which  it  can  mean  nothing  else  than  sprinkle. 

5* 


64  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

The  eunuch  was  one  of  these  many  nations.  This  probably 
suggested  a  conversation  on  baptism,  and  led  to  his  request  to 

For  instance,  Exodus  xxix.  21 :  "  And  thou  shalt  take  of  the  blood 
that  is  upon  the  altar  and  of  the  anointing  oil  and  sprir.kle  it  upon 
Aaron,"  &c.  Lev.  iv.  6  :  "  And  the  priest  shall  dip  his  finger  in  the 
blood,  and  sprinkle  of  the  blood  seven  times."  Lev.  v.  9  :  "  And  he 
shall  sprinkle  of  the  blood  of  the  sin-offering  upon  the  side  of  the 
altar."  Lev.  xiv.  7  :  "  And  he  shall  sprinkle  upon  him  that  is  cleansed 
from  the  leprosy  seven  times."  Indeed,  aside  from  the  Septuagint 
itself,  we  can  get  from  no  source  any  shadow  of  a  warrant  for  trans- 
lating it  as  the  Septuagint  has  done.  Michaelis  gives  the  word  in 
this  passage  the  sense  of  sprinkle,  and  thus  renders  the  phrase  in 
Latin — "  Sic  adsperget  gentes  multas  et  validas." 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Jenks  has  favored  us  with  the  following  note  from 
Vitringa : 

"  Isa.  lii.  15  :  '  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations.'  This  is  a  counter- 
part to  the  former  clause,  and  exhibits  the  glorious  state  of  the  Messiah, 
as  opposed  to  his  humiliation.  The  Jews  themselves  confess  and  teach 
that  the  prophet  here  declares  :  '  As  his  degradation,  or  wretchedness 
and  suffering,  was  in  an  extreme  degree ;  in  an  equally  extreme  de- 
gree will  be  his  exaltation ;'  forming  thus  a  comparison  between  the 
two  conditions. 

"  The  Hebrew  word  here  used  has  uniformly  the  meaning,  m  Scrip- 
ture, of  sprinkling.  The  idea  is  purely  evangelical,  to  be  alone  explained 
by  the  mystery  of  the  gospel,  and  economy  of  the  kingdom  of  Jesus 
Christ,  in  this  place  of  most  easy  and  appropriate  interpretation : 
which,  tha.  it  should  not  be  understood  by  the  Jews,a^  who  study  with  a 

"  a  In  a  note,  Vitringa  reviews  the  opinions  of  Grotius,  L'Empereur,  A  bar- 
banel  and  Alex.  More,  chiefly  following  the  Septuagint,  and  giving  the  idea  of 
*  affecting  llie  nations  with  wonder,'  or  of  '  scattering  them,'  and  adds  :  '  As  to 
the  first  opinion,  is  it  probable  ?  Wliy  is  darlcness  coveted,  in  the  midst  of  light  ? 
Aa  to  the  second,  I  say,  that  the  version  is  absurd,  whether  you  look  at  the  idea, 
or  the  fact.  The  idea  is  uniformly  given  of  a  Hquid  (water  or  blood)  with 
which  a  thing  or  person  is  sprinkled.  Has  this  anything  in  common  with  the 
dispersion  of  enemies  conquered  in  battle?  As  to  the  fact:  did  Jesus  Christ 
disperse  the  nations  he  camie  to  save  ?  Did  he  not  rather  collect  them  V  Abar- 
banel  is  then  quoted  as  referring  to  Isa.  Ixiii.  3,  to  sustain  his  opinion,  and 
Kimchi,  the  father  and  son,  explaining  the  passage  in  the  sense  of  distilling, 
ascribed  to  language,  thus  of  indoctrinating.  [As  Moses,  'my  speech  shall 
distil  as  the  dew.']  Then  he  subjoins,  '  Reader,  lament  with  me,  that  the  pure 
and  chaste  word  of  God  should  be  exposed  so  much  to  the  sport  of  human  im- 
agination, obscuring  its  glory  and  power:  not  indeed  always  because  of  igno- 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  -56 

be  baptized.  Having-  learned  that  Ctirist  was  to  sprinkle 
many  nations,  he  would  not  have  been  willing  to  be  immersed, 

diversified  but  fruitless  effort  to  twist  its  meaning  into  something  else, 
I  do  not  wonder ;  but  that  Christian  interpreters,  and  those  who  love 
the  gospel,  when  they  distinctly  see  that  nothing  can  now  be  spoken 
more  truly  of  Christ,  nor  more  in  agreement  with  his  discipline, 
should  yet  assign  other  senses  to  the  passage,  I  greatly  wonder.  Is 
it  that  we  deny  Isaiah  to  have  been  so  perfectly  illuminated  by  the 
Spirit,  as  to  have  fully  unveiled  the  whole  mystery  of  the  gospel  ? 
God  forbid !  The  next  sentence  will  teach  us,  that  he  saw  all  that 
the  history  declares  befel  Christ  Jesus,  however  paradoxical  the 
events  were.  The  sense  of  this  passage  is  clear,  plain,  certain  ;  that 
Christ  Jesus  will  apply  the  virtue  of  the  blood  shed  by  him,  as  the 
Great  High  Priest  of  the  house  of  God,  to  the  purification  of  the  con- 
sciences of  many  and  great  nations,  and  to  their  illumination  and  sanc- 
tification  ;  and  that  he  will  afford  them  the  justification  obtained  for 
them  by  his  obedience  unto  blood,  as  he  interprets  his  meaning  after- 
wards, in  ch.  Iviii.  II;  but  that  these  nations  who  believe  in  him 
shall  receive  the  sign  of  this  benefit,  and  profess  their  faith  in  baptism, 
to  be  instituted  by  the  command  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  be  adminis- 
tered by  his  apostles  and  servants — this  baptism  sealing  to  those  who 
profess  Christ,  the  same  which  was  formerly  signified  by  the  vari- 
ous purifications,  under  the  ancient  economy,  made  by  washing  or 
sprinklings  for  these  modes  are  equivalent  each  to  the  other.  So  in 
Ezekiel,  ch.  xxxvi.  26  :  '  And  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you, 
and  ye  shall  be  clean.'  But  Peter,  in  his  first  epistle,  ch.  i.  2,  and  the 
apostle  to  the  Hebrews,  x.  22,  xii.  24,  use  the  very  word  sprinkle,  and 
the  phrase,  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  which  is  the  idea  in 
Isaiah.  For  the  word  here  rendered  sprinkle,  and  which  is  used  in 
Levit.  iv,  6,  and  in  Num.  viii.  7,  refers  chiefly  to  the  act  of  a  high 
priest,  who  sprinkles  upon  the  people  the  blood  of  a  victim  offered  for 
them,  in  order  to  purify  them  :  since  to  sprinkle  anything  with  blood 
is  to  apply  its  virtue  for  purification.  Compare  Eph.  v.  26,  with 
Tit.  ii.  14.  Thus  the  glorifying  of  Jesus  Christ  among  the  Gen- 
tiles, given  to  him  for  an  inheritance,  was  to  begin.     The  justifi.- 

rance,  for  this  might  plead  an  excuse,  after  diligent  efforts  had  been  made ;  but 
because  of  prejudices  arising  from  incredulity,  or  the  wavering  and  unstable 
judgment  of  the  multitude.  It  is  loater,  Viere,  which  creates  a  difficulty  with 
Jewish  expositors,  as  they  cannot  make  the  sprinkling  of  it  agree  with  any  of 
their  hypotheses.    But  why  do  Christians  avoid  the  light  that  here  shines  ! ' 


56  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

but  would  choose  to  follow  the  way  of  Christ,  as  foretold  by 
Isaiah.  We  are  well  aware  that  Immersers,  in  their  natural 
anxiety  to  evade  the  point  of  this  argument,  find  fault  with 
our  translators  for  following  the  original  Hebrew  in  this  place, 
and  not  preferring  the  translation  of  the  Seventy.  But  that 
evasion  is  insufficient. 

Inquirer.  Your  argument,  if  1  understand  it,  does  not 
depend  on  that  allusion,  while,  if  that  allusion  be  indeed  a 
prophecy  of  baptism,  it  brings  decisive  confirmation  to  it. 

Teacher.  We  will  turn  now  to  the  baptism  of  the  Philip- 
pian  jailer,  Acts  xvi.  33.  Where  did  it  take  place"?  Not  in 
his  own  house — for  we  are  told,  that  after  the  transaction  he 
brought  Paul  and  Silas  into  his  house.  If  we  follow  the 
record,  we  find  that  it  took  place  in  the  prison — where  to  sup- 
pose there  was  a  bath,  or  other  convenience  for  immersion, 
were  against  all  probability.  The  narrative  favors  the  suppo- 
sition that  the  washing  of  the  stripes  and  the  baptism  were 
done  at  the  same  place,  and  by  water  procured  by  similar 
means.  And  we  shall  not  be  condemned  at  the  day  of  judg- 
ment, if  we  are  shut  out  from  the  Lord's  table  for  not  being 
able  to  guess  that  there  was  a  bath  in  that  prison,  or  to  guess 
that  they  resorted  to  it,  when  the  record  hints  nothing  of  the 
kind.  If  we  suppose  that  the  jailer  was  baptized  with  a  por- 
tion of  the  same  water  brought  to  wash  the  stripes,  we  have 
only  one  supposition,  and  that  natural,  simple,  and  favored  by 
the  narrative.  But  they  who  contend  that  he  was  immersed, 
must  first  guess  that  he  was  ;  and  then  prop  up  that  guess  by 
guessing  again  that  there  was  a  bath  in  prison,  a  luxury  not 
usually  granted  to  prisoners,  especially  by  unmerciful  pagans. 
And  then  they  must  guess  that  they  left  the  inner  prison  and 

cation  obtained  by  the  Messiah  was  to  be  furnished  and  applied  to  them, 
for  illumination,  purification,  righteousness,  and  life. 

ViTRiNGA,  in  loco. 

"  It  were  well,  perhaps,  to  ask,  if  the  word  '  sprinkle,'  in  this  passage, 
had  been  '  immerse,'  whether  its  authority  would  not  have  been  final, 
insetthng  the  mode.  W.  J." 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  67 

resorted  to  it — or  they  must  guess  that  the  jailer  and  his  whole 
family,  and  Paul  and  Silas  reeking  with  their  wounds,  went 
out  at  midnight  to  some  river,  expressly  against  the  orders  of 
the  magistrate  to  the  jailer  to  keep  them  safely.  Now  those 
who  prefer  to  hang  on  such  a  string  of  guesses,  may  do  it ; 
but  let  them  banish  none  from  the  Lord's  table  for  not  taking 
their  guesses  for  holy  writ. 

Inquirer.  I  suppose  you  would  dispose  of  the  ease  of  the 
baptism  of  Saul  much  in  the  same  way. 

Teacher.  Not  a  circumstance  in  that  case  favors  immer- 
sion, hut  everything  looks  the  other  way,  and  shows  that  he  re- 
ceived such  a  baptism  as  he  might  receive  in  the  room  where  he 
was.  He  was  sick  and  weak.  And  all  that  is  told  us  is,  that 
while  confined  to  his  room,  blind,  faint,  and  fasting,  Ananias 
on  entering  the  house  said  to  him — "  Brother  Saul,  the  Lord, 
even  Jesus,  that  appeared  unto  thee  in  the  way  as  thou  camest, 
hath  sent  me  that  thou  mightest  receive  thy  sight,  and  be  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  immediately  there  fell  from  his 
eyes  as  it  had  been  scales,  and  he  received  sight  forthwith, 
and  arose  and  was  baptized."  Now  we  have'here  one  entire 
scene.  The  coming  in  of  Ananias — the  salutation — the  re- 
moving of  the  blindness — his  rising  from  his  couch  of  sickness, 
and  his  baptism,  are  all  one  scene,  occurring  in  the  same  time 
and  place.  These  small  particulars  are  given,  and  it  is  in- 
credible that  a  circumstance  so  important  as  going  out  or  car- 
rying out  a  sick  man  for  immersion  is  omitted.  Lideed,  where 
the  Bible  intimates  no  such  thing,  we  have  no  right  to  say 
that  they  went  out. 

But  to  maintain  his  position,  the  Immerser  must  guess  that 
there  was  a  river  or  a  bath  near  at  hand — guess  that  a  sick 
man  rose  from  his  couch,  after  eating  or  drinking  nothing  for 
three  days,  and  was  yet  able  to  bear  the  fatigue  of  walking 
the  distance  to  and  fro,  and  the  exposure  of  the  immersion. 
And  do  such  guesses  come  near  enough  to  certainty  to  justify 
the  pernicious  consequences  of  the  close  communion  principle ! 


58  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

The  next  case  is  that  of  Cornelius,  Acts  x.  Here  is  an 
entire  absence  of  any  intimation  of  immersion.  Peter  says — 
"  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be  bap- 
tized, who  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we?*' 
He  does  not  ask — Can  any  man  forbid  us  going  to  the  river? 
but,  can  any  one  forbid  water,  to  be  brought  and  applied  to 
their  baptism  on  the  spot  ?  In  his  rehearsal  of  the  affair  to  his 
brethren  afterwards,  he  told  them  that  as  he  began  to  preach, 
the  Holy  Ghost  ye//  on  [mark  the  expression]  the  Gentiles  as 
on  the  Jews  at  the  beginning.  This  called  to  mind,  he  says, 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  that  he  said — John  indeed  baptized 
with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Here  you  see  that  the  pouring  out  and  the  falling  on  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  called  baptism,  and  reminded  Peter  of  baptism. 
And  Peter,  being  thus  reminded  of  the  Lord^s  baptism,  would 
not  go  right  away  and  baptize  in  a  different  way.  And  then 
he  baptized  "  with  loater^''  [i/tT^Ti,  the  dative  of  the  instrument 
without  a  preposition]  and  not  in  the  water.  From  an  exam- 
ination of  the  case,  all  the  probabilities  are  against  immersion. 
That  there  was  immersion  here,  is  a  guess  without  a  shadow 
of  a  foundation. 

We  have  now  examined  all  the  passages  which  have  any 
material  bearing  on  the  question.  And  we  will  here  make 
two  general  remarks.  (1.)  The  apostles  were  wont  to  baptize 
on  the  spot  where  the  occasion  for  baptizing  occurred.  If 
they  were  in  prison,  they  baptized  in  prison  ;  if  on  a  journey, 
they  used  the  water  by  the  way-side  ;  if  in  a  sick-room,  they 
baptized  there.  And  we  never  read  of  their  going  out  to  find 
a  convenient  place  for  immersing — a  very  singular  fact  if  they 
always  immersed.  And  neither  do  we  ever  read  of  a  change 
of  garments  in  baptizing.  (2.)  Those  baptized  were  said  to 
have  been  baptized  not  in  but  with  water.  The  water  is  made 
the  instrument  with  which,  and  not  the  element  in  which, 
they  were  baptized. 

We  will  next  state  a  few  objections  to  immersion  : 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  69 

1.  It  does  not  so  well  agree  with  the  main  design  and  im- 
port of  baptism — i.  e.  purifying  by  an  influence  poured  out. 

2.  It  does  not  harmonize  with  the  simplicity  of  the  Gospel. 

3.  It  cannot  be  administered  in  all  times  and  places  where 
baptism  is  desirable. 

4.  It  is  often  cumbrous  and  inconvenient. 

5.  It  favors  the  Popish  conceit  of  the  efficacy  of  penance, 
in  that  it  lays  stress  on  overcoming  the  natural  repugnance  to 
such  a  mode,  in  the  idea  that  in  it  consists  the  taking  up  of 
the  cross. 

6.  It  is  indelicate.  We  are  aware  that  the  mention  of  this 
objection  is  taken  with  offence.  Yet  it  is  one  which  ought  to 
he  urged,  and  will  have  influence  with  serious  and  unbiassed 
minds.  It  violates  a  natural  and  healthful  sense  of  propriety, 
for  females  to  expose  themselves  in  water,  with  and  before 
the  other  sex.  Though  modesty  forbids  the  statement  of  this 
objection  in  all  its  force,  it  is  enough  to  say,  that  the  sacrifice 
of  female  modesty,  in  a  religious  rite,  is  an  oflfering  not  re- 
quired at  our  hands. 

These  reasons,  since  immersion  is  not  commandedy  would 
of  themselves  lead  us  to  seek  some  other  mode. 


CHAPTER    VII. 

CONCLUDING    REMARKS. 

The  suggestion  which  is  frequently  made,  that  one  had 
better  be  immersed  at  any  rate,  "/or  then  he  will  he  sure  to 
he  right, ^''  deserves  some  notice. 

If  by  being  right  is  meant  the  following  of  the  scriptural 
mode,  one  hy  heing  immersed  will  he  sure  to  he  wrong.  But 
the  main  objection  to  that  suggestion  is  that  it  assumes  that 
the  question  is  only  about  the  quantity  of  water  needful  to  be 
applied ;  whereas  the  doctrine  of  the  Immersers  involves  a 
principle,  which  sunders  the  union  of  the  church,  and  divides 
the  house  of  God  against  itself.  It  is  not  with  you  simply 
the  question  whether  more  or  less  water  shall  be  used  in  your 
baptism.  But  if  you  are  immersed,  you  must  adopt  Immer- 
sers'' principles,  to  wit,  that  immersion  only  is  baptism,  and 
deny  the  baptism  of  all  not  immersed,  and  exclude  them  from 
the  Lord's  table.  You  must  pronounce  the  act  of  your  bap- 
tism in  infancy  a  solemn  farce,  and  trample  on  that  covenant, 
which  perhaps  has  been  the  cord  of  love,  to  bring  you  to 
Christ.  Or,  if  you  have  not  been  baptized,  and  in  that  case 
prefer  immersion,  the  inference  is  that  you  do  it  from  prin- 
ciple, since  that  is  not  the  mode  which  convenience  suggests. 
And  the  principle  on  which  you  prefer  it,  is  understood  to  be 
that  another  mode  is  not  baptism.  So  that  when  you  consent 
to  be  immersed,  it  is  understood,  unless  some  circumstances 
indicate  the  contrary,  that  you  put  your  hand  and  seal  to  the 
avowal,  that  all  churches,  but  those  of  Immersers,  are  walk- 
ing disorderly,  making  an  unauthorized  use  of  Christian  ordi- 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  61 

nances,  and  are  virtually  intruding,  with  unhallowed  feet, 
where  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram  went. 

And  you  would  not  only  unchurch  a  majority  of  the  people 
of  God,  hut  you  loould  unchurch  yourself  and  your  immersing 
brethren.  For  if  immersion  only  is  baptism,  then  the  Im- 
mersers  of  this  country  have  taken  their  baptism  from  the 
unbaptized !  The  first  person  immersed  here  was  Roger 
Williams.  He  was  originally  a  Pedobaptist,  and  was  im- 
mersed by  a  layman,  Ezekiel  Holyman,  and  then  he  immersed 
Mr.  Holyman,  and  the  rest  of  his  church.  Most  of  the  im- 
mersions which  have  since  Taken  place  in  this  country,  trace 
their  pedigree  to  these  cases.  But  Mr.  Williams  soon  made 
the  discovery  that  he  had  unchurched  himself,  and  frankly 
confessed  to  his  church  that  he  had  misled  them — and  was 
not  competent  to  administer  baptism.  And  now  what  did 
he  do  ?  Did  he  go  to  one  who  had  been  baptized  by  immer- 
sion in  a  true  line  of  apostolical  succession  1  Alas,  he  knew 
of  none  such  in  the  world  !  Learned  man  as  he  was,  he 
could  not  find  such  a  lineage  of  Immersers,  though  less 
learned  men  in  later  times  pretend  to  find  them  !  He  was 
driven,  by  his  views  of  consistency  to  his  immersing  principles, 
to  declare  that  Christian  ordinances  had  been  lost,  and  there 
was  no  church  in  the  world,  and  could  not  be,  till  other 
apostles  should  come,  with  miraculous  powers.  For  the 
rest  of  his  life,  therefore,  he  separated  from  all  churches. 
Disguise  it  as  you  may,  this  is  the  necessary  result  of  the 
close  communion  immersing  principle.  So  that,  so  far  from 
being  sure  of  being  right,  in  adopting  this  principle,  you  are 
sure  to  be  wrong ;  and  avow  a  principle  which  makes  all 
Christians  wrong,  and  all  churches  no  churches. 

Close  communion  and  immersion,  as  usually  held,  are  one 
and  the  same  principle.  And  the  consent  to  be  immersed, 
takes  a  fearful  sweep.  It  by  necessary  consequence  makes 
one  an  assailant  of  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  church.  It 
compels  him  to  deny  the  validity  of  the  baptism  of  most  pro  • 
6 


Oa  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

fessing  Christians,  and  to  bring  his  own  into  serious  question. 
It  involves  the  necessity  of  holding  that  all  Pedobaptist 
churches  are  no  churches,  and  their  ministers  no  ministers  ; 
and  yet  under  such  circumstances  as  compel  most  Immersera 
to  waver  in  that  denial.  It  compels  one  to  take  the  ground 
that  most  of  the  Lord's  children  have  no  right  to  the  Lord's 
table — that  most  of  those  who  have  spiritual  communion 
with  Christ,  may  not  have  sacramental  communion  with  him 
— that  most  of  those  who  feed  on  Christ,  may  not  feed  on  the 
appointed  emblems  of  him — that  most  of  those  destined  to  sit 
at  the  marriage-supper  of  the  Lamb,  must  be  driven  from  the 
sacramental  supper. 

If  you  become  an  Immerser,  you  also  take  up  a  principle 
that  wars  against  Christian  love.  The  Immerser  claims  credit 
for  consistency  to  his  principles,  in  proportion  as  he  drives  the 
war  of  extermination  against  all  other  sects,  which  in  his 
esteem  are  no  churches  of  Christ.  Though  few  Immers- 
ers  fully  act  out  their  principles  in  this  particular,  this  prin- 
ciple has  given  their  sect  a  character,  which  is  generally 
allowed  to  be,  above  all  others,  given  to  proselytism.  The 
most  odious  forms  and  measures  of  proselyting  have  their 
justification  in  the  close  communion  principle,  which  makes 
aU  other  churches  no  churches.  If  one  pronounces  all  Pedo- 
baptists  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  strangers 
to  the  covenants  of  promise — unbaptized ,  unfit  to  come  to  the 
Lord's  table — if  one  feels  prompted  to  use  measures  of  prose- 
lyting, from  which  most  others  would  shrink,  to  build  his  sect 
on  the  ruins  of  others — if  he  more  than  insinuates,  where  he 
may  do  it  successfully,  that  one  must  be  immersed  or  be 
damned,  and  thus  carries  his  point  by  overmastering  the  fears 
of  the  weak  and  confiding — if  one  feels  bound  to  do  what 
Balaam  dared  not  do,  and  pronounce  accursed  whom  God 
has  not  cursed,  he  retreats  behind  his  principle  of  immer- 
sion. Consistency  to  that  requires  it  all.  But  that  must 
be   a   pernicious  principle,  that  engenders    such  pernicious 


HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER.  63 

consequences.  Is  one  so  sure  of  being  right  if  he  adopts 
it? 

Then  ivhat  practical  advantage  does  this  principle  offer,  to 
compensate  for  all  its  evil.  Does  it  give  us  better  hopes  of 
heaven  1  Does  it  lead  to  the  formation  of  better  Christian 
character?  Does  it  foster  a  higher  spirit  of  obedience? 
These  are  questions  touching  matters  of  fact,  which  each  one 
can  answer  for  himself.  Were  we  to  test  the  matter  by- 
reference  to  the  cause  of  Foreign  Missions,  we  might,  in  one 
particular,  get  tangible  results.  The  Immersers  claim  to  be 
the  largest  denomination  in  the  United  States ;  of  course  it 
must  be  larger  than  that  of  the  Congregationalists,  together 
with  that  portion  of  the  Presbyterians  which  sustain  the 
American  Board  of  Missions.  Yet  how  do  the  two  boards 
compare?  The  Immersers'  board  raises  and  expends  but 
about  one  fifth  as  much  annually,  as  does  that  of  the  "  un- 
baptized  "  Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians.  If  the  spirit 
of  benevolence  is  any  test  of  principle,  we  see  in  this  partic- 
ular no  advantage  from  immersion. 

Or  does  immersion  show  its  superior  advantages,  in  its 
influence  on  civil  society'?  We  take  you  to  Rhode  Island,  a 
community  whose  infancy  was  cradled  by  the  immersing  prin- 
ciple. Its  institutions  and  the  early  formation  of  its  character 
were  about  as  much  affected  by  that  principle,  as  the  institu- 
tions and  character  of  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  were 
affected  by  the  contrary  principle.  And,  to  say  the  least, 
no  powerful  persuasive  to  immersion  comes  from  Rhode 
Island. 

But  it  is  said,  that  Immersers  have  been  prosperous  and  suc- 
cessful ;  and  this  is  drawn  into  an  argument  in  defence  of  their 
principle.  What  desirable  prosperity  they  have  had,  however, 
may  be  more  owing  to  the  cardinal  principles  of  the  gospel 
in  their  hands  than  to  their  use  of  this  party -shibboleth. 
Yet  success  in  building  up  a  sect  is  a  doubtful  test  of  the  dis- 
tinctive principles  of  that  sect.     For  Papists  and  Mormons 


64  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

might  use  such  an  argument  to  good  effect.  All  other  things 
being  equal,  success  in  building  a  sect,  should  be  in  some 
proportion  to  exertions  made;  and  if  the  exertions  of  Im- 
mersers  to  enlist  recruits  from  other  sects,  outstrip  those  of 
all  others,  should  not  their  success  be  in  some  proportion  to 
their  efforts  ? 

They  have  also  had  special  advantage  for  gathering  the 
lambs  from  Pedobaptist  flocks.  A  public  sentiment  has 
greatly  prevailed  among  Congregationalists  against  publicly 
discussing  the  Immersers'  errors ;  and  indeed  against  all 
efforts,  even  for  self-defence,  against  proselytism.  A  large 
class  among  us  are  ready  to  frown  upon  all  efforts  of  the 
kind.  Their  disgust  at  the  proselytism  of  the  Immersers,  has 
made  them  over-scrupulous,  lest  we  should  imbibe  their 
spirit,  in  attempting  a  defence  against  them.  This  has  in  a 
great  measure  paralyzed  efforts  on  our  part,  and  given  Immers- 
ers an  advantage  which  they  have  not  been  slow  to  use. 
But  Immersers  have  no  clogs  of  this  sort.  Who  ever  heard 
of  an  Immerser  reproved  by  Immersers  for  defending  the 
principles  of  his  sect — or  even  for  furious  onsets  on  other 
sects  ■? 

This  difference  leads  to  another.  By  this  state  of  things  it 
has  come  about  that  most  Immersing  ministers,  however 
deficient  in  other  particulars,  have  concentrated  their  main 
strength  on  the  subject  of  baptism ;  and  so  have  their  argu- 
ment at  their  tongue's  end,  and  (what  is  more  important) 
are  familiar  with  all  the  little  tactics  of  proselytism.  But 
Pedobaptist  ministers,  taught  to  feel  that  they  have  less  use 
for  thorough  knowledge  on  this  subject,  are  in  a  way  to  cul- 
tivate that  knowledge  less.  It  is  felt  to  be  more  important  to 
preach  so  as  to  convert  sinners,  than  to  preach  so  as  to  pre- 
vent their  running  into  Anabaptism.  And  because  they  have 
thus  felt  and  acted,  Immersers  have  seized  on  the  fact,  as  an 
occasion  to  represent  that  Pedobaptists,  generally,  do  not 
understand  the  subject ;  and  have  not  examined  it — and  do  so 


HINTS    TO   AN    INQUIRER.  65 

and  so  merely  because  their  fathers  did  :  and  whatever  show 
of  truth  they  are  able  to  throw  around  this  representation,  is 
very  useful  to  their  sinister  purpose.  Hence,  too,  it  is  often, 
and  with  great  confidence  asserted,  among  Immersers,  that 
Pedobaptist  ministers  are  not  sincere  in  their  belief.  There 
is,  indeed,  good  reason  for  believing  that  the  more  general 
idea  of  Immersers,  as  to  us,  is,  that  we  practise  Pedobap- 
tism,  and  refuse  immersion,  against  the  convictions  of  our 
judgment  and  conscience.  This  persuasion,  so  potent  for 
popular  effect,  has  originated  partly,  perhaps,  from  the 
proselyting  industry  of  the  others,  and  partly  from  our  com- 
parative indifference  as  to  defending  our  principles.  Our  fear 
to  err  on  the  side  of  proselytism,  has  been  construed  into  a 
disbelief  of  our  principles,  and  an  impression,  highly  mis- 
chievous, has  been  produced.  Our  ministers  have  been  made 
to  feel  that  it  is  next  to  a  sin  to  resist  aggressive  efforts,  and 
show  any  zeal  in  attachment  to  our  distinctive  principles. 
Some  of  our  v/riters  on  the  subject,  from  a  desire  to  show  a 
generous  and  liberal  spirit,  have  made  unwarrantable  con- 
cessions. Preaching  on  the  subject  has  been  too  much  dis- 
couraged. In  revivals  of  religion,  ministers  have  given  place 
to  the  grossest  proselyting  efforts,  fearing  to  check  the  revi- 
val by  restraining  them.  With  all  these  advantages  and 
exertions,  the  wonder  is,  that  Immersers  have  not  made  more 
progress  than  they  have. 

If  our  principles  are  worth  defending,  public  sentiment 
among  us  should  be  so  far  correct  as  to  allow  of  the  labor 
of  defence,  and  not  to  go  into  spasms  at  the  occurrence  of 
"controversy"  on  the  subject.  Our  ministers,  also,  must 
make  themselves  familiar  with  the  points  of  the  argument,  and 
the  best  modes  of  presenting  them.  It  is  not  sufficient  that 
they  study  the  subject  enough  to  satisfy  their  own  minds. 
It  is  their  duty  to  preserve  their  people  from  being  seduced 
into  a  pernicious  error  ;  and  for  this  purpose  they  need  to 
understand  not  only  the  truth,  but  also  all  the  tactics  by 
6* 


66  HINTS    TO    AN    INQUIRER. 

which  the  truth  is  assailed.  Disagreeable  as  the  duty  may 
be,  he  is  an  unfaithful  servant  who,  in  this  day,  shrinks 
from  it.  Private  Christians,  too,  have  duties  in  relation  to 
this  subject,  the  nature  of  which  may  be  learned  from  the 
shape  of  the  efforts  put  forth  by  many  of  the  members  of  im- 
mersing churches  ;  and,  uncongenial  as  they  are,  these  duties 
must  be  done,  unless  we  are  willing  to  suffer  "the  way  of 
truth  to  be  evil  spoken  of." 


THE      BAPTISMAL      QUESTION 


REVIEW 


REV.  MESSRS.    COOKE   AND   TOWNE'S 


HINTS  TO   AN  INQUIRER 


SUBJECT    OF    BAPTISM. 


BY  WILLIAM  Hague; 

Pastor  of  the  Federal  St.  Baptist  Church. 


BOSTON : 

GOULD,    KENDALL    &    LINCOLN, 
5 9    Wa shington    Street. 

1842. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


The  pamphlet  to  which  I  have  here  furnished  a  Reply,  was  issued  yester- 
day. On  Saturday'  last,  I  first  saw  public  notice  given  of  the  republication 
in  this  form  of  some  numbers  from  the  columns  of  the  "  Puritan."  Of  those 
numbers  I  had  heard,  but  had  not  read  them.  A  friend  sent  them  to  me ;  I 
read  them  on  that  day,  and  have  this  week  prepared  an  pnswer.  I  mention 
this  to  show  the  reason  of  my  noticing  only  one  of  the  two  authors,  whose 
names  are  on  the  pamphlet  before  me.  It  having  been  announced  that  the 
Rev.  Mr,  Towne  was  the  sole  author,  I  wrote  under  that  impression.  I  have 
chosen  to  refer  to  him  alone  moreover,  because  I  should  not  have  noticed  the 
book  at  all,  had  I  not  learned  that  it  was  from  the  pen  of  one  of  our  city 
pastors  j  and  as  the  matter  now  stands  before  the  public,  he  is  as  responsible 
for  one  part  of  the  production  as  the  other. 

BuLFiNCH  Street,         > 
Tliursday,  May  20,  1842.      5 


REVIEW. 


There  is  one  feature  of  this  pamphlet  which  will  certainly 
be  pleasing  to  every  reader;  that  is,  the  tone  of  sincerity 
which  animates  it.  The  author  writes  like  one  who  not  only 
feels  an  interest  in  his  subject,  but  also  a  conviction  of  the 
truth  of  his  own  statements.  He  takes  a  clear  and  decided 
position,  and  risks  his  whole  cause  upon  a  single  issue.  This 
we  like.  It  is  coming  to  the"  point.  It  exhibits  the  manliness 
inspired  by  sincere  belief  It  is  true,  here  and  there,  we  are 
forced  to  pause,  and  ask,  "Is  it  possible  for  an  intelligent 
Christian  and  scholar  to  believe  this?"  Yet  the  language  and 
spirit  of  the  whole  production  set  the  question  aside,  and  lead 
us  to  the  conclusion  that  he  has  written  from  his  heart  as  well 
as  his  intellect ;  that  he  "  believes,  and  therefore  speaks." 

It  is  not  for  the  sake  of  paying  a  compliment,  that  we  make 
this  remark,  but  because  we  are  really  pleased  when  com- 
mencing a  discussion,  to  feel  that  we  have  to  do  with  a  sin- 
cere man.  It  is  not  always  so.  In  reading  controversial  wri- 
tings, one's  feelings  are  often  ruffled  by  the  impression  con- 
stantly recurring,  that  this  or  that  is  said  merely  for  effect,  and 
rather  from  the  spirit  of  "  partiality  and  hypocrisy,"  than  a 
deep  conviction  of  its  justness.  We  are  aware  that  a  man 
may  be  sincere  in  defending  error  as  well  as  truth  ;  and  that 
when  through  inadvertence,  or  prejudice  of  education,  or  want 
of  sufficient  knowledge,  he  has  adopted  one  wrong  principle, 
it  may  lead  him  into  a  thousand  absurdities,  yet  it  smooths  the 
path  of  controversy,  to  believe  that  you  have  an  honest  oppo- 
nent. Frail  as  Mr.  Towne's  argument  really  is,  untenable  as 
his  position  appears  to  be  when  sound  philology  pours  its  light 
around  it,  he  undoubtedly  thinks  it  strong;  and  if  he  venture 
forth  into  this  field  of  discussion  with  a  bolder  step  and  an  air 
of  greater  confidence  than  many  of  his  predecessors,  it  is  be- 
cause he  sees  less  clearly  than  they,  the  difficulties  which  are 
before  him,  and  the  perils  which  beset  his  path.  A  man's 
confidence  that  he  is  right,  sometimes  arises  from  the  limita- 
tion of  his  views. 

Nevertheless,  it  must  be  admitted  that  this  exhibition  of  a 
sincerity  of  belief,  is  blended  with  a  strong  glow  of  denom- 
inational antipathy.  This  appears  at  the  outset,  in  refusing  to 
apply  to  the  Baptists  the  name  by  which  they  are  usually 
designated.  The  reason  assigned  for  this  is,  that  it  would  im- 
1* 


ply  a  concession  that  ihey  alone  properly  baptize.  Hence,  he 
insists  on  calling  them  "Immersers."  Now  this  denotes  a 
morbid  state  of  mind,  which  would  be  very  likely  to  bias  his 
judgment,  and  unfit  him  for  an  impartial  investigation.  He 
who  cannot  give  to  a  denomination  of  Christians  the  name  by 
which  they  have  been  long  known  in  a  community  and  among 
different  nations,  is  ill  prepared  to  do  justice  to  their  cause. 
If  such  a  mode  of  attack  were  followed  out,  the  mouths  of  dif- 
ferent sects  would  be  filled  with  contemptuous  epithets.  With 
equal  reason,  the  Baptists  might  say,  we  will  not  call  the  Con- 
gregationalists  by  the  name  which  they  have  assumed,  for  we 
also  are  Congregationalists;  and  to  do  so,  would  imply  a  con- 
cession that  they  have  an  exclusive  right  to  the  name.  With 
the  same  reason  we  might  say  it  of  the  Independents  in  Eng- 
land;  as  if  yielding  the  name,  implied  that  all  other  churches 
were  in  a  state  of  subjection  to  a  hierarchy.  Just  so  too  we 
might  refuse  to  speak  of  the  Episcopalians  by  their  usual  de- 
signation, on  the  ground  that  it  involved  a  concession  that  they 
alone  have  bishops;  and  believing  that  in  the  scriptural  sense, 
we  have  bishops  as  well  as  they,  we  might  insist  on  calling  them 
Diocesans.  But  what  would  be  the  consequence  of  all  this? 
Nothing  but  strife,  bitterness  and  niutual  disrespect.  Let  us 
have  nothing  to  do  with  such  childish  bickering.  The  apostle 
Peter  places  the  practice  of  courtesy  in  the  list  of  Christian 
duties;  and  if  we  have  aught  of  his  spirit,  we  will  yield  to 
each  denomination  tlie  name  by  which  it  is  usually  known, 
and  beware  how  we  "strive  about  words  to  no  profit." 

With  Mr.  Towne's  "preliminary  thoughts,"  we  think  the 
Baptists  will  cordially  agree.  He  says,  "a  divine  simplicity 
characterizes  the  New  Te:stament  institutions,  and  it  is  con- 
trary to  the  genius  of  the  gospel  to  lay  great  stress  on  out- 
ward rites.  It  rather  invites  the  main  solicitudes  upon  ordering 
the  heart  and  life."  In  such  a  sentiment,  it  might  be  ex- 
pected that  the  Baptists  would  heartily  accord,  since  they 
have  long  been  distinguished  for  maintaining  the  spirituality 
of  the  Christian  religion,  and  showing  that  none  have  a  right 
to  baptism  at  all,  until  they  have  repented  of  sin,  and  yielded 
their  hearts  to  God.  For  this  they  have  been  persecuted  for 
ages  past  in  Europe.  In  the  reign  of  Henry  VIIl.,  as  Bishop 
Burnet  tells  us,  a  national  creed  was  issued,  approved  by  "the 
whole  clergy  of  the  realm,"  declaring  that  "infants  must  needs 
be  christened,  because  they  be  born  in  original  sin,  which  can- 
not be  remitted  without  baptism,  whereby  they  receive  the 
Holy  Ghost."  The  Baptists  of  that  day  could  not  assent  to 
this,  but  defended  the  doctrine  of  infant  salvation  in  all  its 
breadth,  and  were  exposed  to  the  censure  of  all  the  Pa^dobap- 
tists  of  England,  for  declaring  that  there  is  no  difl^erence  "be- 
tween the  infant  of  a  Christian  and  a  Turk,"  but  that  both 
might  be  saved  without  baptism. 


Equally  ready  am  I  to  assent  to  anotlier  preliminary  remark, 
that  the  gospel  does  not  "lay  stress  on  the  mode  of  performing 
an  external  rite."  I  have  never  contended  for  any  particular 
mode  of  baptism,  but  for  the  rite  itself;  for  that  which  is  essen- 
tial to  its  very  nature  ;  for  that  which  the  word  used  in  the 
commission  of  our  Lord  positively  enjoins.  If  sprinkling  were 
a  mode  of  baptism,  I  should  never  think  of  ])raciising  immer- 
sion. It  would  be  a  gross  absurdity  to  do  it,  and  a  sin  to  urge 
it  on  the  conscience  of  a  Christian  convert,  if  sprinkling  a  few 
drops  of  water  on  the  forehead,  would  really  meet  the  demand 
of  the  word  in  the  baptismal  statute.  If  the  word  baptizo  in 
the  Greek  Testament  does  not  denote  the  act  of  immersion,  or 
dipping,  in  distinction  from  other  modes  of  applying  a  liquid,  the 
foundation  of  the  Bapiist  argument  is  not  laid  in  solid  rock, 
but  on  a  shifting  quicksand.  I  am  glad  therefore  that  Mr. 
Towne  has  defined  his  position  so  clearly  as  he  has  done,  in 
declaring  that  the  word  boptizo  does  not  denote  any  particular 
use  of  water,  but  all  possible  ways  in  which  it  can  be  applied; 
that  in  the  New  Testament  it  evidently  means  to  s|>rinkle  ; 
and,  (to  quote  his  phrase  with  all  the  em])hasis  with  which  he 
has  printed  it,)  "THERE  IS  NOT  THE  SLIGHTEST 
GROUND  TO  SUPPOSE  THAT  ANY  INSPIRED  MIN- 
ISTER EVER  BAPTIZED  BY  IMMERSION."  Let  him 
make  this  clear  on  the  same  princi})les  on  which  we  ascertain 
the  meaning  of  other  words  in  the  English  or  any  other  lan- 
guage in  the  world,  and  I  pledge  myself  at  once  to  abjure  im- 
rriersion  forever,  and  to  receive  sprinkling  at  his  hand. 

Meaning  of  the  Word. 

It  is  evident  at  a  glance,  that  the  turning  point  in  this  con- 
troversy is  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  uord  baptizo,  which 
stands  in  our  Bibles  with  an  English  termination.  The  cir- 
cumstances connected  with  the  adujinistration  of  the  rite,  the 
places  chosen,  such  as  Jordan  and  Enon,  the  force  of  the 
Greek  prer)ositions  eis  and  ek,  which  express  a  descent  7/?/o  and 
a  rising  up  out  of  the  v/ater  as  definitely  as  any  prepositions 
in  the  Greek  language  can  do  it,  are  all  strongly  corroborative 
of  our  position  that  the  act  of  baptism  denoted  by  the  term  in 
Christ's  commission,  is  properly  and  adequately  translated  into 
English  by  the  word  immersion  which  comes  from  the  Latin, 
or  by  the  word  dipping  of  Anglo-Saxon  origin.  Nevertheless, 
if  it  can  be  clearly  proved  beforehand,  that  the  active  verb 
baptizo,  the  name  of  an  action,  is,  when  used  with  reference  to 
water,  so  indeterminate  as  riot  to  denote  any  particular  kind  of 
action,  but  rather  all  possible  modes  of  use  of  which  water  is 
susceptible,  from  that  of  a  single  drop  to  an  ocean,  then  it 
follows, — that  however  much  of  doubt  the  circumstances  and 
prepositions  might  occasion  to  tender  consciences,  the  baptis- 


8 

mal  law  from  the  lips  of  Christ,  contained  in  the  commission, 
presents  a  great  variety  of  modes  to  the  choice  of  the  individ- 
nal,  or  leaves  it,  as  the  Pope  of  Rome  vvoiihl  say,  to  be  deter- 
mined by  church  authority.  The  common  sense  of  mankind 
has  always  determined  that  the  language  of  law  should  be 
definite;  but  this  supposition  attributes  to  the  great  Legislator 
of  the  church,  language  the  most  vague  and  indeterminate. 
The  main  question  is,  whether  the  word  used  by  Christ,  to  en- 
join baptism,  in  the  last  exercise  of  his  legislation  on  earth,  in 
giving  that  commission  which  is  binding  "to  the  end  of  the 
world,"  denotes  a  specific  act  or  not.  ]f  it  does  not,  then 
there  is  no  law  which  certainly  holds  us  to  immersion,  or  de- 
fines what  act  the  Saviour  nieant,  whether  it  were  the  aj)j)li- 
cation  of  water  to  the  iiead  or  tlie  feet,  the  face  or  the  hands. 
If  it  does,  then  all  objections  drawn  from  supposed  difficulties, 
or  improbabilities,  or  from  the  greater  convenience  of  sprink- 
ling, are  no  more  to  be  regarded  as  arguments,  than  those 
questions  which  skeptics  sometimes  ask  in  order  to  throw  dis- 
credit on  the  very  letter  and  spirit  of  revelation. 

Now  this  great  question,  "  What  sort  of  action  does  the  word 
haptizo  denote?"  Mr.  Towne  approaches  in  a  very  curious  way. 
It  is  worth  while  to  mark  it  well,  to  see  how  sophistry  may 
lead  caj)tive  a  confiding  reader,  lie  says,  "All  agree  that  bap- 
tism is  water  applied  by  a  |)roper  person  to  a  proper  person  in 
the  name  of  tlie  Trinity.  TIjis  much  is  fixed  and  settled." 
"^Phis  broad,  vague  definition  of  baptism  is  very  unscholar- 
like  in  a  discussion  where  the  meaning  of  the  chief  term  is  to 
be  settled.  Baptism  is  the  name  of  some  kiufl  of  action  or 
other,  and  has  nothing  to  do,  in  itself  considered,  with  the 
character  of  the  adtninistiator  or  the  subject,  the  invocation  of 
the  Trinity,  or  any  particular  element,  whether  it  be  oil  or 
wine,  or  blood  or  water.  After  the  meaning  of  the  term  is 
settled,  then  if  the  question  should  arise,  what  is  involved  in 
the  performance  of  the  Christian  institute  of  baptism,  the  above 
quotation  would  be  a  just  reply.  What  would  be  thought  of 
the  philology  of  a  Jew,  if  he  were  asked,  what  is  the  meaning 
of  the  word  sprifdile,  and  he  should  reply,  it  denotes  the  stri- 
king of  the  blood  of  a  lamb,  upon  the  door  posts  of  a  house 
by  a  proper  person  at  a  jjroper  time,  to  commemorate  a  great 
deliverance?  This  would  be  a  queer  definition  of  a  word 
which  is  the  name  of  an  action,  but  would  do  very  well  as  an 
answer  to  another  question,  namely,  "wliat  is  involved  in 
God's  ordinance  of  passover  sprinkling?"  Yet  Mr.  T.  goes  on 
to  say,  "You  will  settle  it  therefore  whether  immersion  alone, 
is  ba[)tism  at  all.  Jf  1  fidi  from  a  ship's  side  and  am  thoroughly 
immersed — is  that  baptism  ?  No.  Or  if  men  immerse  me  by 
force — is  that  baptism?  No.  Or  if  1  am  immersed  by  my 
own  consent,  but  not  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity — is  that  bap- 
tism ?    No.      Well  then,  neither  immersion,   nor  the   use   of 


9 

water  in  any  way  is  baptism ;  WHICH  IS  SOMETHING 
MORE."  p.  6.  Now  what  absurdity  is  here  !  Why,  if  baptism 
be  immersing,  and  especially  if  it  be  any  application  of  water, 
then  all  this  is  baptism,  though  not  Christ's  ordinance  of  baptism. 
In  the  very  same  chaj)ter  he  speaks  of  the  pharisaic  washings 
of  hands,  cups  and  couches,  as  real  baptism,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment use  of  the  term.  And  so  they  were,  as  we  shall  show, 
though  not  Christ's  ordinance.  Whence  arises  this  confusion? 
whence  this  effort  to  confound  the  name  of  an  action,  with  all 
the  circumstances  of  an  ordinance?  Evidently  from  a  disposi- 
tion to  lead  the  inquirer's  mind  away  from  the  point  at  issue, 
and  to  get  scope  enough  to  put  into  the  word,  bapiizo,  all  that 
vast  variety  of  meaning  which  will  subject  the  Saviour's  rite  to 
the  caprice  of  every  ai)plicant,  and  give  the  digjiity  of  its  name 
to  every  way  of  applying  water  which  the  human  imagination 
may  suggest. 

This  "is  evident  from  the  terms  in  which  Mr.  T.  announces 
the  ultimate  conclusion  at  which  he  thinks  he  has  arrived. 
"If  the  word  therefore  denotes  the  application  of  water  in  di- 
vei"S  ways,  it  is  indeterminate,  like  our  word  ivash,and  does  not 
define  any  one  way  in  which  the  water  shall  be  applied  in  the 
religious  rite.  Tbis  conclusion  is  immovable.  We  have  sus- 
tained it  by  a  nndtitud«  of  examples  cited  before;  and  tJuU  all 
lexicographers  concur  in  it,  no  intelligent  Immerser  will  deny.'" 

NOW  THIS  IS  THE  VERY  THING  WHICH  I  DO 
DENY.  Here  is  a  question  of  fact:  Do  all  the  lexicographers 
agree  in  saying  that  the  word  is  indeterminate?  I  aver  that 
the  standard  lexicographers  of  every  country  where  Greek  lite- 
rature is  studied,  agree  in  saying  just  the  contrary  in  their  lexi- 
cons. If  Mr.  Towne  has  had  private  communications  from  any 
•of  them,  reversing  what  they  have  printed,  let  him  produce  the 
documents  or  testimony.  But  if  tJie  question  is  to  be  settled 
by  an  appeal  to  the  hooks,  the  proofs  are  now  before  my  eyes. 
My  assertion  is,  that  the  words  bapto  and  baptizo,  (which  are, 
as  Mr.  T.  observes,  both  from  one  lOot  and  so  nearly  identical 
in  meaning  as  to  allow  of  our  speaking  of  them  as  one  word,) 
are  determinate  as  to  mode,  and  in  this  the  lexicograjihers 
generally  agree. 

The  first  authority  which  I  will  produce  is  one  which  might 
be  expected  above  all  others  to  support  Mr.  Tovvne's  position — 
the  Lexicon  of  tite  New  Testament,  by  Doctor  Robinson,  Pro- 
fessor of  Sacred  Literatiu'e  in  the  I'heological  Setiiinary  at 
Andover.  I  quote  him  first,  because  his  work  contains  Eng- 
lish definitions,  and  is  accessible  to  those  who  wish  to  consult 
it.  Turn  to  the  word  bapto.  The  first  meaning  which  occiu's, 
is  "to  dip  in,  to  immerse."  The  first  exam|)le  to  ilUistrate  this 
meaning,  is  John  xiii,  26,  where  Jesus  is  re|)resented  as  using 
the  word  to  designate  the  act  of  dipping  the  sop  into  the  dish 
before  giving  it  to  Judas.     The  next  example  is  Leviticus  iv. 


10 

6,  where  the  Septuagint  has  this  term.  It  is  worthy  of  partic- 
ular notice  by  the  reader  of  the  Bible,  because  the  three  words, 
dip^  sprinkle  and  pour  are  brought  into  close  connection.  "And 
the  priest  sliall  dip  his  finger  in  the  bU)od,  and  sprinkle  of  the 
blood  seven  times  before  the  Lonl  ;  and  (verse  7,)  shall  pour  all 
the  blood  of  the  bullock  at  the  bottom  of  the  altar."  Here  are 
three  different  actions  expressed  by  their  three  appropriate 
names,  and  yet  Mr.  Towne  would  have  us  believe  that  the  first 
word  [hapto)  means  the  same  thing  as  the  other  two!  Coidd 
any  thing  be  more  absurd?  This  quotation  of  itself  shows 
that  the  first  word  is  determinate  as  to  mode. 

The  second  and  last  meaning  in  Robinson's  Lexicon  under 
hnpto^  is  thus  marked:  "(b)  by  impl.  to  finffe,  to  c(?/e."  That 
abbreviated  word,  denoting  "by  implication,''^  is  very  important 
in  this  case,'and  involves  the  |)rinciple  which  Mr.  T.  from  first 
to  last  has  overlooked,  and  by  overlooking  it,  he  misunder- 
stands the  lexicons,  and  his  philology  is  entirely  confounded. 
The  word  hapto  incleed  means  to  dye,  but  then  it  is  by  IMPLI- 
CATION. And  why  by  implication?  Because  if  any  thing 
be  dipped  or  baptized  in  coloring  matter,  staining,  tinging,  or 
dyeing  is  the  effect.  The  first  example  to  illustrate  this  mean- 
ing is  Revelations  xix.  13;  a  vesture  dif)ped  in  blood.  The 
word  which  the  lexicographer  has  brought  to  prove  that 
hapto  means  to  dye  is  in  the  New  Testament  translated  dipped. 
When  therefore  hapto  means  staining  or  dyeing,  it  only  implies 
it,  and  denotes  that  it  is  performed  by  dipping  instead  of  any 
other  way.  This  indeed  is  the  usual  way  of  dyeing,  as  any  one 
knows  who  has  visited  a  dye-house.  It  is  obvious  too  that  a 
thing  may  be  colored  by  being  sprinkled,  but  hapto  does  not 
designate  that  act,  and  could  never  be  used  in  connection  with 
it  in  a  literal  sense,  unless  it  were  to  express  the  idea  that  the 
substance  had  become  thoroughly  drenched,  or  as  wet  as  if  it 
had  been  dipped. 

The  j)rineiple  here  developed  in  relation  to  hapto,  applies  of 
course  to  haptizo.  There  is  not  a  lexicon  in  the  world,  which 
does  not  give  as  the  primary,  the  leading  meaning  under  6a;)- 
<i2o,  "to  inunerse,  to  siid?,  to  submerge,  dip  or  i)lunge,  either 
two  or  all  of  them.  And  if  to  dye,  stain,  wash,  or  cleanse,  is 
added,  it  is  as  we  have  just  seen,  by  implication.  Having  now 
examined  again  the  celebrated  lexicon  of  Scai)ula,  I  will 
here  firesent  all  the  meanings  under  haptizo:  merge — im- 
merse, (used  in  regard  to  those  things  which,  for  the  sake  of 
dyeing  or  washing,  we  immerse  in  water.)  Likewise,  merge — 
submerge,  overwhelm  with  water.  A\so,  tvash  off— lave.  He 
then  adds,  that  it  is  applied  by  Christians  to  the  rile  of  initia- 
tion to  the  church.  Now  here  are  all  the  meanings  given  to 
the  word,  by  one  of  the  most  celebrated  lexicons  in  Kurope. 
First,  the  i)rimary,  specific  meaning,  and  then,  in  ;\  parenthesis, 
the  exclusion  of  any  meaning  more  general,  limiting  its  appti- 


11 

cation  to  those  cases  of  dyeing  and  washing,  where  for  the 
sake  of  washing  or  dyeing,  the  thing  is  immersed.  A  like  pa- 
renthesis occurs  under  bapto.  Mergo,  imniergo — Item  tingo, 
(quod  fit  immergendo;)  that  is,  in  English,  merge,  immerse, 
likewise  dye,  (which  is  done  by  immersing.)  The  lexicon  of 
Scapula  is  authority  over  the  learned  world,  and  if  baptizo 
means  lo  pour  and  sprinkle,  why  are  not  those  significations  to 
be  found  liere  ? 

I  have  open  before  me  another  lexicon  with  English  defini- 
tions, and  will  proceed  to  qjiote  all  those  which  occur  under 
baptizo.  It  is  Donnegan's,  edited  by  Prof  Patton,  of  Princeton 
College,  and  may  be  found  easily  at  the  bookstores.  Baptizo^ 
to  immerse  repeatedly  into  a  liquid,  to  submerge — to  soak  thor- 
oughly— to  saturate  ;  hence,  to  drench  with  wine.  Metaphor- 
ically, to  confound  totally, —  to  dip  in  a  vessel  and  draw.  Pass. 
Perf  to  be  immersed.  There  are  no  more,  and  yet  Mr.  Towne 
declares  that  he  has  proved  the  word  to  mean  pouring  and 
sprinkling,  as  well  as  immersion,  and  that  in  this  indeterminate 
character  of  it,  all  the  lexicographers  are  agreed  !  Surely,  it 
required  courage  to  make  that  assertion.  I  lay  no  claim  to 
such  bravery. 

This  principle  that  baptizo  has  a  specific  signification,  and 
therefore  means  to  wet,  wash,  or  cleanse  only  by  implication, 
thus  "%  iis  own  force  ^^  determining  the  way  of  a{)plying  water, 
is  clearly  set  forth  by  those  tliree  great  lexicographers  of  the 
New  Testament,  Schleusner,  Wahl  and  Bretschneider,  the  last 
of  whom  says  in  his  Theology,  Part  II.  673,  "An  entire  im- 
mersion belongs  to  the  nature  of  baptism."  The  same  remark 
applies  to  Hedericus,  Stephens,  Suicer,  Passow  and  Rost. 

Moreover,  we  may  cite  many  cases  in  which  the  word  bap- 
tizo, by  its  own  force,  must  determine  the  meaning  of  the  sen- 
tence, and  if  it  have  not  a  specific  signification,  the  sentence 
has  no  sense.  For  instance,  ^anieiai  -t]  vavg,\\\e  shi{)  is  bap- 
tized. Now  the  lexicons  agree  in  saying  that  this  means,  the 
ship  is  submerged,  or  sinks.  (See  Donnegan  and  others.) 
Now  if  baptizo  denotes  any  way  of  applying  water,  who  can 
tell  what  hapi)ened  to  the  ship?  Such  phrases  occur  in  his- 
tory, as  may  be  seen  in  Polybius  and  Xenophon  ;  but  accor- 
ding to  this  philology,  which  I  reprobate  and  pronounce  en- 
tirely false,  no  one  could  tell  whether  the  writer  meant  to  say 
that  the  dew  fell  upon  the  vessel,  or  that  the  spray  dashed 
over  the  prow,  or  that  she  was  wet  by  a  shower  of  rain,  or  that 
the  sailors  cleansed  the  deck,  or  that  she  sprung  aleak,  or  that 
the  waves  washed  the  sides,  or  that  she  was  launched,  or  that 
she  was  purified  by  some  ceremony.  Here  order  is  turned  intc 
confusion. 

Josephus,  (Antiq.  9,  10,  2,)  speaking  of  Jonah  in  the  storm 
on  his  voyage  to  Tarshish,  says  the  seamen  would  not  throw 
him  overboard,  until  the  vessel  was  about  to  sink,  or  be  bap- 


12 

tized.     Here  the  word  in  question  by  its  own  force  determines 
tiie  sense. 

Again,  how  void  of  sense  is  this  passage  in  Strabo,  Lib.  16, 
nnless  tlie  word  before  us  lias  the  character  we  assign  to  it. 
Speaking  of  the  lake  Sirbon,  he  says  tlie  bitumen  floats  on  the 
surface,  because  of  the  nature  of  the  water,  which  does  not  ad- 
mit of  diving,  nor  can  anyone  who  enters  it  be  baptized,  (or 
sink,)  but  is  borne  up, 

I  could  fill  pages  with  such  citations,  if  it  were  necessary  or 
desirable,  showing  that  if  the  word  does  not  determine  mode, 
there  is  no  clue  to  the  author's  meaning.  But  then  it  may  be 
asked,  what  is  to  be  done  with  those  exami)les,  which  Mr.  T. 
says  prove  that  hapto  means  to  pour  or  sprinkle  ?  Let  us  take 
them  up,  and  see  wljelher  they  sustain  his  assertion,  or  prove 
an  extreme  eagerness  to  force  on  the  word  a  meaning  which 
does  not  necessarily  belong  to  it. 

In  his  first  example  from  Callimachus,  he  says  the  word  fecrp- 
^ize,  means  to  "tZraif?  wp."  '-To-day,  ye  bearers  of  water  bap- 
tize none" — that  is,  "draw  up  none."  Now  here  the  word  has 
its  usual  meaning,  "dip."  The  |>hrase  is  "me  baptete.^^  "To- 
day, ye  bearers  of  water,  dip  not,"  that  is,  your  pitchers  in  the 
river  Inachus.  Just  so  Aristotle  says,  (Qusest.  Median,  c.  29,) 
"the  bucket  must  first  be  dipped — hapsai — and  then  draw  up." 
Hence  Donnegan's  Lexicon  says,  under  Bapto,  "to  draw  out 
weter  by  dipping  a  vessel  into  it."  Yet  Mr.  T.  says,  this  exam- 
ple proves  that  6a;?/o  has  a  meaning  short  of  immersion!  It 
reminds  me  of  the  saying  of  a  celebrated  logician  :  "  How  few 
there  are  who  know  wiien  a  thing  is  proved!" 

His  next  example  is  from  Hippocrates,  who,  speaking  of  a 
certain  liquid,  says,  "when  it  drops  upon  the  garments,  they 
are  dyed,  (baptized.")  Mr.  T.'s  comment  is,  "observe,  the 
dro|)ping  of  the  liquid  is  called  baptism."  To  which  I  reply, 
"Observe,  the  dropping  of  the  liquid  is  called — dropj)ing;  but 
the  ejfed  of  the  process,  which  was  to  make  a  garment  look  as 
ifit  had  been  dipped  in  coloring  matter,  is  designated  by  a 
word,  which  by  implication  means  to  dye,  as  all  lexicographers 
agree."  To  illustrate  the  fallacy  of  Mr.  Tovvne's  criticism,  let 
us  suppose  for  a  moment  that  he  were  a  Greek,  studying  Eng- 
lish, and  wished  to  know  the  meaning  of  the  word  dip.  First 
of  all,  he  would  naturally  turn  to  a  lexicon,  and  I  will  suppose 
him  to  use  one  as  comprehensive  as  Richardson's  English 
Dictionary,  which  1  have  now  before  me,  in  two  quarto  vol- 
umes. There  he  finds  the  history  of  the  word  traced.  ^' Dip. 
[Anglo-Saxon — Dippan — mergere,  immergere — to  dip — to  dive. 
Dutch,  Dippen,  Doppen.  Sw.  Dopa.]  to  siid?,  to  immerge,  to 
put  vmder  water  or  other  liquid,  to  depress,  to  sink  below  the 
surface,  to  enter  or  go  superficially  or  slightly  into  any  thing. 
Consequentially,  to  wet,  to  damp."  Overlooking  the  principle 
involved  in  the  word  "con5e5i<enh'a%"  lie  says  to  himself,  the 


13 

word  c??'/?,  means  to  wet — to  damp.  Then  meeting  such  a  pas- 
sage as  this  in  Milton's  Comus, 

"a  cold  shuddering-  dew 

Dips  me  all  o'er/' 

he  gravely  reasons  thus  with  himself:  "The  word  dip,  may 
mean  sometimes  to  immerse.  But  the  cold  dew,  falls  on  one, 
and  wets  hy  a  gentle  sprinkling.  I  will  remember  therefore 
that  the  word  dip,  means  to  sprinkle."  Now  I  ask,  if  he  should 
persist  in  calling  the  act  of  sprinkling  dipping,  and  appeal  to 
Milton  for  authority,  how  would  an  English  school-boy  correct 
his  mistake?  Simply  by  inforniing  hitn  that  the  word  dip 
means  to  immerse,  and  that  the  poet  means  to  denote  the  effect 
of  the  dew,  rendering  one  as  wet  as  if  he  had  been  di[)ped. 

This  illustration  may  suffice  to  expose  the  fallacy  and  the 
folly  of  a  vast  host  of  Psedobaptist  criticisms  on  this  word  ; 
criticisms  put  forth  hy  a  comparatively  small  number  of  the 
clergy  in  England  and  America.  For  on  the  continent  of 
Europe,  the  really  learned  have  rarely  if  at  all  exposed  them- 
selves to  such  a  censure.  Let  it  then  be  borne  in  mind,  that 
if  Mr.  Towne  can  prove  in  any  way  that  bapto  means  to  pour 
or  sprinkle,  on  the  same  principle  I  will  prove  that  to  dip 
means  to  pour  or  sprinkle.  I  will  bring  as  many  examples 
from  English  literature  to  prove  the  latter,  as  he  will  bring 
from  Greek  literature  to  prove  the  former.  Such  a  passage  as 
this  from  Spencer  would  be  quite  to  the  point.  Of  Hope  he 
says, 

"  She  always  smyl'd,  and  in  her  hand  did  hold 

An  hoiy-waler  sprinkler  dipt  in  dew, 

With  which  she  sprinkled  favors  manifold 

Ou  whom  she  list." 

How  evident  it  is  that  as  the  dew  fell  in  drops  on  the  instru- 
ment called  a  sprinkler,  that  the  word  "dip,"  there  means 
sprinkled.  In  the  same  way  it  can  be  verily  proved  that  the 
word  immerse  means  to  sprinkle,  and  to  sprinkle  may  mean  to 
immerse.  And  in  fact  that  not  one  word  in  the  English  lan- 
guage specifies  with  invariable  certainty  any  one  way  of  ap- 
plying water.     Surely,  "  words  are  but  air!" 

As  these  remarks  on  a  false  principle  of  interpretation  will 
apply  to  the  use  which  Mr.  T.  makes  of  most  of  his  examples, 
1  will  only  notice  one  or  two  more,  which  being  printed  in 
capitals,  he  probably  deemed  particularly  important.  "Homer 
in  his  battle  of  the  frogs  and  mice  says  :  He  fell  and  breathed 
no  more,  and  the  lake  was  tinged  with  the  purple  blood!  Was 
the  lake  immersed  in  the  blood  of  a  mouse  ?"  It  may  not  be 
necessary  for  me  to  do  it.  but  I  will  just  hold  a  candle  to  the 
reader.  I  will  quote  from  an  English  poet,  and  then  ask  a. 
question.     Cowley,  in  the  Davideis,  Book  II.  says, 

2 


14 

'•'Still  does  he  glance  the  forluue  of  that  day, 
When  drowned  in  his  own  blood  Goliaih  lay, 
And  covered  half  the  plain." 

My  question  is:  Can  a  man  be  drowned  in  the  blood  that  he 
has  carried  in  liis  veins  ?  You  answer,  No.  I  ask  then,  do 
you  not  see  that  to  drown  means  to  sprinkle  or  bedew  ?  You 
reply  at  once  that  1  have  quoted  from  a  work  of  imagination  ; 
that  the  poet  has  used  a  hyperbole;  that  one  design  of  a  hyper- 
Hole  is  to  magnify  an  object,  and  that  though  I  could  not  see 
the  propriety  of  the  figure  without  understanding  the  literal 
meaning,  yet  it  is  absurd  to  look  for  that  meaning  in  such  a 
case.  Having  once  gotten  the  literal  meaning,  we  can  see  its 
manifold  apphcation  in  figures;  but  for  us,  figurative  language 
can  have  no  existence  unless  we  first  learn  what  is  literal.  A 
school-boy  who  is  so  far  advanced  as  to  master  the  elements 
of  rhetoric  can  see  this;  but  such  noble  authors  as  Kaimes 
aud  Whately  write  in  vain  for  theologians  who  have  a  favorite 
point  to  carry. 

This  use  which  some  defenders  of  sprinkling  have  made  of 
Homer's  battle  of  the  frogs,  reminds  me  of  a  poem  once  made 
by  a  playful  student  on  another  sort  of  battle,  namely,  with 
some  bugs  which  had  been  crushed  upon  his  bed.  The  line 
which  I  refer  to  was,  "  Lo,  my  couch  is  drenched  in  gore."  If 
any  thing  like  this  had  occurred  in  a  Greek  writer,  a  few 
among  the  clergy  of  our  day  would  have  stood  ready  to  assert 
that  tiie  word  translated  "drenched,"  means  to  s])rinkle.  And 
what  candid  inquirer  cannot  see,  that  a  position  must  be  false 
which  requires  men  to  tram[)le  down  the  ])lainest  rules  of 
speech,  and  to  argue  on  jtriuciples  that  would  overturn  the 
very  foundations  of  order  in  language.^ 

The  reply  of  the  Sibyl  touching  tlie  destiny  of  Athens,  Mr. 
T.  puts  all  in  capitals,  as  if  he  thought  it  decisive.  His  quota- 
tion is,  "Thou  mayest  be  ba|)tize{l,  O  Bladder,  but  it  is  not 
permitted  to  thee  to  go  luider  the  water."  He  takes  it  from  Plu- 
tarch's life  of  Theseus.  His  comment  on  it  is,  "this  floating 
upon  the  water  is  called  baptism."  I  might  well  insert  a  note 
of  admiration  here,  but  I  forbear.  Let  his  inquirer  just  turn 
to  the  translation  of  Plutarch.  Jt  is  a  common  book,  and  found 
in  most  of  the  stores.  The  first  life  recorded  is  that  of  Theseus. 
The  answer  of  Sibyl  is  there  in  a  single  line: 

"  The  bladder  may  be  dipped,  but  never  drowned."' 

This  is  poetry  and  good  sense ;  the  other  rendering  is  none- 
sense.  The  design  of  the  oracle  was  to  represent  Athens  as 
overwhelmed,  pressed  down  with  calamities,  yet  rising  again 
by  its  own  energy  as  soon  as  that  [)ressure  is  taken  oflT;  and 
the  idea  of  complete  submersion  was  essential  to  that  design. 

So  far  is  floatiujr  from  meaning  baptism,  that  Lucian  in  his 
dialogue  of  Simon  the  Man-hater,  puts  this  expression  in  his 


15 

mouth:  "If  I  should  see  auy  one  floating  towards  me  on 
the  rapid  torrent,  and  he  should  beseech  nie  to  assist  him,  I 
would  thrust  him  from  me,  baptizing  him  until  he  should 
rise  no  more,"  Admit  Mr.  T.'s  definition  of  baptizo,  the  appli- 
cation of  water  in  any  mode,  and  the  sense  is  destroyed. 

In  order  to  corroborate  the  statements  I  have  made  touching 
Mr.  T.'s  lexicography,  I  will  just  treat  one  or  two  English 
words  in  the  same  way  he  treats  the  word  baptizo.  I  will  take 
the  word  to  sail,  supposing  an  officer  of  the  government  to  have 
before  him  a  written  document  from  some  high  authority,  to 
sail  to  Nova  Scotia.  The  word  literally  means  "to  pass  by 
means  of  sails."  A  common  man,  without  prejudice,  would 
conclude  a  voyage  by  sea  to  be  meant.  But  by  consulting  va- 
rious authors,  it  is  found  that  the  word  sail,  "by  its  own  force," 
does  not  deterniine  any  thing  about  the  mode  of  conveyance. 
It  is  found  that  Milton's  angels  sailed  through  the  air,  "  the  eagle 
sails  along  the  sky,"  the  sailing  kite  was  borne  by  the  gentle 
•breeze,  tlie  man  in  a  balloon  sailed  many  miles,  the  moon 
"sailed  through  the  heavens,"  the  queen  in  her  coach,  {u\\- 
rohed,  sailed  majestically  along,  &c. ;  and  the  conclusion  is,  that 
the  word  sail  means  motion  in  general,  and  the  command  to 
sail  to  Nova  Scotia,  would  be  obeyed  by  walking,  or  riding,  or 
going  in  a  railroad  car. 

Just  so,  the  command  of  Christ,  "Drink  ye  all  of  it,"  might 
be  evaded  by  one  who  wished  to  dispense  with  tasting  wine 
in  the  Lord's  supper.  Common  jieople  su|)pose  that  the  word 
drink  in  that  command,  means  to  "receive  the  liquid  into  the 
mouth  and  swallow  it."  But  it  is  found  by  the  learned,  that 
the  word  means  also  "to  absorb,  to  inhale,  to  take  in  eagerly, 
to  salute  with  wine,  to  hear,  to  see,  to  wish  well  in  the  act  of 
taking  a  cup."  (See  Johnson,  Walker,  Richardson.)  The  earth 
"drinketh  in  rain,"  the  flowers  drink  tlie  dew,  the  ears  drink  in 
sounds,  the  eyes  "drink  the  light," — from  fingers  dipj)€d  in 
vinegar  the  aching  temples  "drink  refreshment."  Evidently 
then,  to  drink  does  not  mean  to  swallow,  "but  receiving  in  any 
mode;  and  so  the  divine  command  may  be  obeyed  by  inhaling 
fumes  of  wine,  or  letting  it  drop  upon  the  hands  to  be  drank 
up  by  the  pores.  Absurd  as  this  may  seem,  the  candid  inquir- 
er will  bear  me  out  in  saying,  the  philology  is  just  as  sound  as 
that  wljich  asserts  baptizo  to  mean  the  application  of  water  in 
any  mode  that  is  possible. 

On  the  philological  principles  of  this  Essay,  I  would  defy 
Mr.  T.  or  any  Pa^dopaptist  writer  to  cope  successfully  with  the 
Universalists,  wlien  the  meaning  of  the  word  aion'ior,  eternal, 
is  in  question.  The  one  party  as  much  as  the  other,  violate  a 
self-evident  rule  of  criticism,  thus  stated  by  Ernesti,  (p.  71,) 
"that  the  literal  meaning  is  not  to  be  deserted  without  evident 
reason  or  neecesity;"  and  the  Pa3dobaptists  especially  violate 
another  canon  stated  by  the  same  writer,  "  let  not  the  transla- 


16 

tor  commute  j^enus  for  species,  nor  antecedent  for  consequent," 
page  100.  Hence  both  parties  feel  a  difficulty  in  translating 
the  chief  word,  pertainini^  to  their  particular  system.  The 
Paedobaptisits  cannot  find  an  Anglo-Saxon  word  to  suit  them, 
but  must  cover  up  the  idea  in  the  original  Greek,  and  the 
Universalists,  instead  of  giving  us  a  word  that  is  definite,  in 
the  English  tongue,  tell  us  of  "  aeonian  God,  who  regards 
all  peo[)le  with  an  aeonian  love,  has  provided  for  them  an 
aeonian  salvation,  together  with  an  aeonian  righteousness 
through  which  they  shall  now  experience  an  aeonian  consola- 
tion, and  finally  possess  aeonian  life  in  a  aeonian  kingdom;  but 
if  they  reject  and  des|)ise  all  tiiis,  they  will  be  compelled  to 
suflfer  aeonian  punishment."  The  word  expresses  notiiing  with 
ceriaintij. 

Having  dwelt  thus  long  on  Mr.  T.^s  lexicography,  and  set 
forth  the  })rinciples  on  which  the  reader  may  dispose  of  all 
the  examples  he  alleges,  I  proceed  to  consider  his  view  of 

« 
The  Testimoi^t  of  the  Greek  Church. 

His  inquirer  very  properly  asks  if  the  Greek  church  do  not 
practice  immersioji,  and  if  they  are  not  good  authority  on  such 
a  question  ?  Mr.  T.  objects  to  them  as  witnesses  on  account  of 
their  superstition;  says  that  they  do  not  always  practice  im- 
mersion, and  are  therefore  against  ihe  principle  that  it  is  essen- 
tial  to  baptism. 

To  this  I  answer,  that  as  this  controversy  turns  on  the  mean- 
ing of  a  Greek  word,  the  superstition  of  the  Greeks  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  their  testimony  as  to  its  import.  Suppose  a 
question  of  great  interest  should  arise  in  this  city  about  the 
meaning  of  a  word  in  the  Mahometan  Koran.  That  book  was 
writtenin  Arabic;  and  if  there  were  in  Asia  a  community 
who  had  always  sjjoken  Arabic,  and  had  always  hail  the  Koran 
in  their  hands  from  the  first,  and  the  word  in  question' had  al- 
ways been  in  common  use  among  them,  would  any  man  of 
common  sense  say  that  their  testimony  were  worth  nothing? 
Does  the  superstition  of  an  English  sailor  render  him  incom- 
petent to  tell  tlie  meaning  of  the  word  sail?  Does  the  super- 
stition of  any  man  among  us,  aflTect  his  competency  to  tCvStify 
to  the  meaning  of  the  word  sprinkled  Now  let  it  be  remem- 
bered, that  among  the  Greeks,  baptizo  is  as  common  a  word,  as 
sail,  or  sj)rinkle,  among  us.  It  is  one  thing  to  ask  a  man's  tes- 
timony to  the  import  of  a  current  term  in  his  own  language, 
and  quite  another  thing  to  ask  his  opinion  on  a  doctrine;  and 
in  this  case,  it  is  not  so  much  the  testimony  of  the  Greek  church, 
as  of  the  Greek  nation,  which  we  desire. 

Now  in  regard  to  the  practice  of  the  Greek  church,  the  stress 
which  they  lay  on  immersion,  and  the  reason  for  it,  I  have  ev- 
idence before  me  sufficient  to  settle  the  question. 


17 

The  first  testimony  1  shall  adduce,  is  from  a  pamphlet  pub- 
lished in  Athens,  in  1838,  by  Theocletus  Phannacides,  Secre- 
tary of  the  Holy  Synod  of  Greece.  It  seems  tliat  some  of  the 
Russian  divines  had  been  endeavoring  to  justify  some  sort  of 
ablution  short  of  immersion,  as  being  the  Christian  rite. 
Pharmacides  says;  "But  we  ask  the  very  pious  Russian  di- 
vines, where  they  found  this  two-fold  mode  of  baptizing? 
Was  it  in  the  New  Testament?  But  in  tliat,  baptizo,  in  the 
command  of  our  Lord,  'Go  ye  therefore  and  teacli  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,'  (Matt,  xxviii.  19,)  signifies  nothing  else  than 
that  which  the  same  Greek  word  properly  signifies.  And  this 
is  manifest  from  the  baptism  of  our  Lord  himself^  wlio  when 
he  was  baptized,  ive^it  up  straightwajj  out  of  the  water ;  (Matt.  iii. 
16;)  but  he  who  goes  up  out  of  the  water,  goes  down  first  into 
the  water;  that  is,  he  is  all  baptized  in  it.  One  mode  there- 
fore of  baptizing,  we  learn  from  the  New  Testxinient — that  by 
immersion,  {yMTudvaecog)]  and  immersion  is  no  otlier  than  an 
entire  covering  b}'  means  of  or  in  water.  Then  again  the 
Russians  were  taught  Christianity  bij  m5,  and  from  their  teach- 
ers they  learned  one  and  only  one  mode  of  baptizing.  And  do 
not  the  Russian  divines  know  how  much  debate  exists,  and  how 
much  contention  takes  place,  between  ns  and  those  who  re- 
ceive sprinkling  [rantismon)  or  pouring,  instead  of  baptism? 
Sprinkling  or  pouring,  instead  of  baj)tism,  according  to  the 
proper  signification  of  the  word,  was  introduced  into  the 
church  by  the  Latins,  in  the  twelfth  or  thirteenth  century,  and 
they  also  have  received  it  who  have  separated  from  the  Latin 
church.  And  it  is  not  yet  probably  an  entire  century  since 
immersion  as  baptism  was  entirely  disused  in  Germany.  But 
that  the  verb  haptizo  in  the  New  Testament  signifies  nothing 
other  than  what  the  verb  properly  signifies,  we  bring  as  a  wit- 
ness also  a  divine  of  the  Latin  church,  Dr.  Frederic   Brenner." 

Pharmacides  goes  on  to  quote  Dr.  Brenner  on  the  point,  and 
then  proceeds :  "  See  here  a  divine  of  the  Western  church  ex- 
plains the  word  haptizo,  in  the  command  of  Jesus  Christ  re- 
specting baptism  ;  ami  as  he  explains  the  word,  other  divines, 
of  whatever  church  they  may  be,  cannot  but  explain  it.  But 
since  the  Western  church  sprinkles  or  poiu's,  and  does  not  hap- 
iize,  it  is  impossible  that  she  should  not  wish  to  justify  herself. 
Whence  also  Dr.  Brenner  brings  after  the  above,  reasons  for 
sprinkling  or  pouring;  but  these  arguments  are  very  much 
forced,  as  is  the  conclusion." 

The  next  witness  I  shall  bring,  is  from  a  pamphlet,  entitled, 
"Catechism  or  Orthodox  Doctrine  of  the  Oriental  Church,  for 
the  use  of  the  Greek  Youth.  Published  with  the  approbation 
of  the  Holy  Synod :  fourth  edition,  Athens,  1837." 

Page  26.  Baptism  is  a  mystery  in  which  the  body  is  washed 
[louetai]  with  water. 

2* 


18 

Page  27.  The  person  baptized  is  submerged  [buthizetai]  in 
water,  Avhile  tlie  minister  of  Christ  or  priest  pronounces  these 
words,  &c. 

My  third  witness  shall  be  the  Bisiiop  of  the  Cyclades,  a 
member  of  the  Synod  of  the  Kingdom  of  Greece.  His  y»am- 
phlet  was  pnblislied  in  Athens  in  1837,  entitled,  "Orthodox 
Doctrine."  It  is  composed  in  verse.  The  plan  of  it  is  this: 
A  young  man,  born  of  (7reek  parents  in  Washington  in  America, 
and  baptized  by  a  Greek  priest  who  happened  to  be  there, 
having  been  left  untaught  in  the  Greek  religion,  on  account  of 
the  early  death  of  the  priest  who  baptized  liim,  after  having  ob- 
tained an  education,  returns  to  the  land  of  his  ancestors.  He 
finds  himself  ignorant  of  their  religion.  Fortunately  he  falls 
in  the  way  of  a  presl)yter,  who  kindly  explains  to  him  the 
things  necessary  to  his  vsalvation.  Tliis  book  is  designed  to  be 
a  brief  system  of  theology,  and  at  the  same  time  to  expose  the 
dangers  of  those  young  Greeks  who  are  educated  in  America  I 
In  regard  to  baptism,  it  says,  (page  238.)  "Let  him  who  is 
about  to  be  baptized  and  become  a  Christian,  stand  uncovered 
At  the  same  time  the  fonts  must  be  capacious,  that  they  may 
be  full  of  water,  so  as  to  contain  the  whole  body  of  the  person 
baptized,  even  to  the  crown  of  the  head;  and  that  the  water 
mmj  cover  the  hairs  of  the  head.^' 

Out  of  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses,  every  word 
shall  be  established  ;  and  yet  1  will  add  the  testimony  of  one 
more,  a  Greek  writer  to  whom  Pharmacides  refers  with  great 
respect,  and  well  known  in  Etu-ope,  Alexander  de  Stourdza; 
who  in  a  work  entitled  "Considerations  on  the  Doctrine  and 
Spirit  of  the  Orthodox  Church,"  published  in  Studgart  in  1816, 
says:  "  The  Western  Church  has  done  violence  to  the  word 
and  the  idea  of  the  rite,  in  ]n-actising  baptism  by  sprinkling, 
the  very  enuuciation  of  which  is  a  ludicrous  contradiction.  Bap- 
tism and  immersion  are  identical," 

What  now  should  be  thought  of  Mr.  Towne's  statement  that 
the  Greeks  do  not  lay  as  much  stress  on  immersion  as  the 
Baptists  of  this  country  ?  and  also  that  "they  are  against  the 
principle,  that  immersion  is  essential"  to  the  ordinance?  Has 
he  known  whereof  he  affirmed  ?  Has  he  been  misled,  or  has 
he  failed  to  inform  himself,  and  then  spoken  rashly?  I  can 
make  no  other  supposition  without  impeaching  his  sincerity, 
which  I  would  not  do  by  any  means.  But  though  a  man  be 
sincere,  rashness  connected  with  the  want  of  knowledge,  is 
certainly  no  virtue. 

Let  the  testimony  of  the  Greeks  be  weighed  well.  We  ask 
not  their  opitiion  as  to  what  good  baptism  will  do,  or  under 
what  circimistances  it  shoidd  be  administered,  or  on  any  doc- 
trine of  the  church;  but  tlieir  understanding  of  an  imi)ortant 
word,  which  is  the  same  now  in  their  every  day  speech,  that  it 
was  in  the  time  of  Christ.     There  has  been  no  change.     The 


19 

writings  of  the  modern  Greeks  on  the  meaning  of  baptism, 
are  conformed  to  their  early  Christian  literature;  as  for  in- 
stance, to  the  expressions  of  Chrysostom  who  says,  that  in 
baptism  "  our  heads  are  submerged  in  water  as  in  a  tomb." 
(Hom.  25,  in  Joan.) 

As  I  look  around  me  here,  and  see  the  practice  of  sprinkling 
called  baptism,  I  am  led  to  ask  whence  it  came?  1  press  the 
question  on  the  Oriential  church,  and  she  answers  "not  from 
me."  She  abjures  it  as  an  innovation  which  annihilates  the 
ancient  rite,  and  charges  its  introduction  on  the  Papal  church. 
1  turn  to  the  latter  church  and  address  the  same  question  to 
her,  and  she  acknowledges  the  saying  of  the  Greek  to  be  true. 
She  declares  that  immersion  was  the  primitive  practice,  but 
that  by  authority  committed  to  her,  she  changed  it.  .  She  admits 
the  deed,  and  claims  the  right  to  do  it.  The  large  and  beauii- 
ful  marble  baptisteries  throughout  her  realm,  the  relics  of 
many  centuries,  stand  as  monuments  of  a  buried  rite.  Her 
scholars  and  her  priests  agree  in  understanding  the  Greek 
word,  and  the  primitive  practice  as  the  Greeks  themselves  do. 
I  turn  to  the  Reformed  churches,  and  their  learned  men,  with 
the  writings  of  the  Reformers  in  their  hands,  declare  in  the 
language  of  Calvin,  "the  word  6cr/>/ize  means  to  immerse,  and 
it  is  certain  that  immersion  was  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
church,"*  yet  plead  for  the  change,  since  it  is  made  on  the  ground 
of  expediency  or  convenience.  While  these  replies  linger  on 
my  ear,  my  attention  is  roused  by  a  few  voices  of  the  clergy  of 
New  England,  denying  what  the  learning  of  the  old  world  has 
established,  and  making  assertions  in  bold  tones  touching 
Greek  literature,  at  which  the  learned  Greeks,  Italians  and 
Germans,  of  different  churches  and  opposite  opinions  in  theol- 
ogy, alike  profoundly  marvel. 

Although  the  practice  of  immersion  prevails  so  generally  iti 
the  countries  of  the  Eastern  chm-ch,  where  the  Pope  never 
swayed  a  sceptre,  yet  because  it  is  different  in  those  which  are 
or  have  been  papal,  Psedobaptist  writers  often  represent  us  as 
setting  ourselves  against  the  decisions  of  a  vast  majority  of  the 
learned  of  Europe.  This  is  an  entire  mistake.  Whatever 
may  be  the  practice  of  churches,  determined  as  it  has  been  by 
kings  and  parliaments,  popes  and  cardinals,  the  learning  of  the 
world  is  on  our  side  in  this  question.  On  no  point  within  the 
whole  compass  of  theology,  is  there  so  great  a  union  of  opinion, 
though  not  of  practice,  among  the  really  learned  of  different 
nations,  as  is  justly  observed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Synod  of 
Greece.  What  though  Calvin  did  not  practice  immersion  ? 
It  is  enough  for  me  to  know  that  he  said  "  the  word  haptizo, 
means  immerse,  and  it  is  certain  that  immersion  was  the  prac- 
tice of  the  primitive  church."     What  though  Luther  did  not 

*Calvin's  Institutes,  Art.  'Bap.' 


20 

practice  immersion?  It  is  enough  for  me  to  know  that  he  as- 
serted it  to  be  the  proper  mode,  as  the  only  one  "  answering  to 
the  signification  of  baptism,"  and  that  he  so  rendered  the  Greek 
word  in  liis  German  version  of  the  New  Testament.  What 
though  Melancthon  did  not  practice  immersion  ?  I  know  that 
he  gave  it  the  suffrage  of  his  judgment.  I  might  say  the  same 
of  Beza,  Erasmus,  VVitsius,  Venema,  Turrettein,  Spanheim, 
Grotius  and  Mosheim,  the  first  of  whom  says,  "  haptizo  does 
not  signify  to  ivash  except  by  consequence,"  and  the  last  of 
whom  declares,  "baptism  was  performed  in  the  second  cen- 
tm-y,  without  the  public  assemblies,  in  places  appointed  and 
prepared  for  that  purpose,  and  was  performed  by  immersion 
of  the  whole  body  in  the  bapitsmal  font."(Eccl.  Hist.  Cent.  I.  11.) 
All  the  learning  of  modern  Europe,  and  of  the  most  celebrated 
critics  now  living,  Greek,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  utters  but 
one  voice  on  this  point.  If  the  clear  and  positive  testimony  of 
the  leading  scholars  of  the  universities  of  Germany  will  have 
any  weight  with  Mr.  Towne  or  the  reader,  they  may  find  it  in 
an  article  from  Professor  Sears,  in  the  Christian  Review  for 
March,  1838.  The  Catholic  Church,  too,  speaking  through 
such  men  as  Bossuet  of  a  former  age,  and  of  the  present, 
Wiseman,  now  President  of  the  English  College  at  Rome,  is 
strong  in  the  assertion  of  the  one  meaning  of  the  word,  and  of 
the  ancient  practice  being  in  accordance  with  it,  though  her 
own  is  not  so.  Let  it  be  remembered  therefore,  that  the  litera- 
ture of  the  world  is  with  us,  and  then  let  it  be  asked,  whether 
Mr.  Towne  can  be  justified  in  charging  us  with  arrogance  for 
maintaining  a  position  which  the  wisest  men  of  every  age 
have  proved  to  be  right?  Is  assumption  on  our  side,  or  on 
his? 

Nor  is  Tyndal,  the  father  of  our  present  English  version, 
to  be  left  out  of  this  list.  Mr.  T.  places  the  weight  of  his 
opinion  on  the  side  of  sprinkling.  Whatever  may  have  been 
Tyndal's  practice,  we  have  his  express  testimony  to  the  scrip- 
tural character  of  our  view  of  baptism.  In  a  comment  on 
Eph.  v.  26,  after  reprobating  the  conduct  of  the  Romish  clergy 
in  using  a  Latin  form  of  words,  he  says:  "Now  as  a  i)reacher 
in  preaching  the  word  of  God,  saveth  the  hearers  that  believe, 
so  doeth  the  v.'asshinge,  in  that  it  preacheth  and  represenieth 
to  us  the  promise  that  God  hath  made  unto  us  in  Christe;  the 
wasshinge  preacheth  unto  us  that  we  are  clensed  wyth  Christe's 
blonde  shedynge,  which  was  an  oflTering  and  a  satisfaction  for 
the  pynne  of  al  that  repent  and  beleve,  cousentynge  and  sub- 
niittynge  themselves  unto  the  wyl  of  God.*    The  plungxjnge  into 


So  Covvper ; 


"There  is  a  fountain  filled  with  blood, 
Drawn  from  Immaniiel's  veins; 
And  sinners  plunged  beneath  that  flood, 
Lose  all  their  guilty  stains." 


21 

the  ivaier  signifyeih  that  we  die  and  are  buried  with  Christe,  as 
conserning  the  old  life  of  synne  which  is  Adam.  And  the 
pulling  out  again,  signifyeih  that  we  rise  again  with  Christe  in  a 
new  Tife,  full  of  the  Holy  Gooste,  which  shall  teach  us  and 
gyde  us,  and  work  the  wyl  of  God  in  us,  as  thou  seest,  Rom. 
vi."  This  passage  occurs  in  a  work,  entitled,  "The  Obedience 
of  all  Degrees,  proved  by  God's  Worde,"  imprinted  by  William 
Copland,  at  London,  1561.  Probably  Mr.  Towne  was  not 
aware  of  the  existence  of  such  a  passage  from  the  pen  of  Tyn- 
dal,  or  he  would  not  have  spoken  as  he  has  done. 

We  may  see  then  who,  in  this  controversy,  are  Mr.  T.'s  real 
opponents.  First,  all  the  Greek  nation,  who  are  competent  wit- 
nesses of  the  meaning  of  a  term  in  their  native  tongue.  Sec- 
ondly, all  the  learned  of  other  nations  in  Europe,  who  feel  that 
in  their  assertions  they  have  any  reputation  to  risk  as  scholars. 
Though  these  latter  practiced  sprinkling,  yet  they  did  not  do  it 
on  the  ground  that  the  word  baptizo  meant  sprinkle,  or  that 
such  was  the  practice  of  the  apostolic  age.  Like  the  Catho- 
lics, these  Protestants  plead  for  h  on  the  ground  of  expediency, 
convenience,  or  church  authority.  Mr.  T.  knowing  that  a  free 
community,  educated  like  ours,  will  not  ultimately  hold  to  the 
practice  on  such  grounds,  feels  himself  bound  to  support  it  by 
the  Bible,  or  give  it  up,  and  is  thence  driven  to  make  the  most 
daring  and  reckless  assertions.  He  seems  dissatisfied  with  the 
moderate  statements  of  Dr.  Woods  and  Prof.  Stuart,  and  apol- 
ogizes for  what  he  calls  their  "concessions,"  as  arising  from 
their  liberality.  But  those  venerable  veterans  in  controversy 
have  made  the  very  best  of  their  cause,  and  after  all,  it  is  the 
only  point  within  the  compass  of  theology  on  which  they  lose 
their  wonted  strength.  See  how  Mr.  T.  arrays  his  scholarship 
against  the  leading  men  of  every  church.  He  says  the  word 
means  to  sprinkle  and  pour!  Weigh  the  statement  against 
that  of  Beza,  the  author  of  Latin  poems,  the  Professor  of  Greek 
at  Lausanne,  the  colleague  of  Calvin  and  the  translator  of  the 
New  Testament,  yet  not  a  Baptist  in  practice:  "Baptizo  does 
not  signify  to  wash  except  by  consequence,  for  it  ])roperly  sig- 
nifies to  immerse  for  the  sake  of  dyeing.  To  be  baptized  in 
water,  signifies  no  other  than  to  be  immersed  in  water;  which 
is  the  external  ceremony  of  baptism."  (Epistola  II.  ad  Thorn. 
Silium,  Amotat  in  Marc.  vii.  4,  &c.)  So  Dr.  Wall,  one  of  the 
"Lights  of  the  English  church,"  who  wrote  more  largely  than 
any  man  in  England  in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  says  tliat  im- 
mersion was  the  primitive  practice,  and  that  ^'•this  is  so  plain  and 
clear,  that  one  cannot  but  pity  the  weak  endeavors  of  such  Pse- 
dobaptists  as  would  maintain  the  negative  of  it.  'T  is  a  great 
want  of  prudence  as  well  as  of  honesty,  to  refuse  to  grant  to 
an  adversary  what  is  certainly  true  and  may  be  proved  so.  It 
creates  a  jealousy  of  all  the  rest  that  one  says."  So  I  might 
mention  Dr.  Campbell,  of  the  Scotch  church,  principal  of  Ab- 


22 

erdeen  College,  who  made  Hnrne  actually  ashamed  of  his  ar- 
gument on  miracles,  and  was  indeed  the  greatest  bihlical  critic 
of  the  age  in  Great  Britain,  in  one  of  his  theological  lectures, 
urging  the  exercise  of  candor  on  young  ministers,  cites  as  a 
ridiculous  instance  of  the  want  of  it,  the  case  of  those  who 
deny  that  immerse  is  an  adequate  translation  ofbaplizo,  merely 
for  the  sake  of  party  effect.  And  without  going  further,  weigh 
the  statement  against  that  of  Bossuet  of  the  Catholic  church, 
Bishop  of  Meux,  who  says,  "John's  baptism  was  performed  by 
plunging.  In  fTne,  we  read  not  in  the  scripture  that  baptism 
was  otherwise  administered  ;  and  we  are  able  to  make  it  ap- 
pear by  the  acts  of  councils  and  by  the  ancient  rituals,  that  for 
thirteen  hundred  years,  baptism  was  thus  administered  throus;h- 
out  the  whole  church,  as  far  as  was  ])ossible." 

Again  I  say,  let  the  reader  judge  on  which  side  is  arrogance 
and  assumption  ;  on  mine  or  that  of  my  oi)ponent. 

If  what  I  have  now  advanced  in  regard  to  the  lexicography 
of  the  word  in  question  be  true,  then  Mr.  Towne's  whole  argu- 
ment is  destroyed.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  proceed  fur- 
ther. All  those  trifling  suggestions  about  the  inconvenience  of 
immersion,  to  the  apostle  and  others,  are  swept  away.  The 
error  must  then  die  of  itself.  If  1  have  crushed  the  head  of  the 
serpent,  I  may  well  let  the  tail  alone.  Nevertheless,  a  few 
words  on  Mr.  T.'s  treatment  of  several  passages  of  scripture 
may  meet  the  wants  of  some  inquirers.  I  will  proceed  there- 
fore briefly  to  notice  his  objections  to  our  views  of  the 

Baptisms  of  the  New  Testament. 

I.  John's  Baptism.  It  is  useless  in  this  connection  to  discuss 
the  question  whether  John's  baptism  is  to  be  called  Christian 
or  not.  The  New  Testament  has  but  one  name  for  the  ordi- 
nance, by  whomsoever  administered,  and  the  act  must  have 
been  the  same.  John's  baptism  came  "  from  heaven."  Jesus 
received  it,  and  the  disciples  had  no  other.  If,  as  we  have 
proved,  baptism  means  iujmersion,  then  John  immersed.  But 
Mr.  T.  cannot  see  how  it  was  possible  for  John  to  immerse  so 
many  people  as  resorted  to  him,  in  a  year  and  a  half.  "The 
passage  of  scripture  cannot  imj)ort  less  than  five  thousand." 
This  reminds  me  of  Voltaire's  objection  to  the  narrative 
of  the  slaughter  of  the  infants,  in  the  second  of  Mat- 
thew. Why,  he  says,  Herod  must  have  slain  fourteen  thou- 
sand ;  and  how  was  it  possible  that  the  other  historians  should 
not  have  noticed  it  ?  This  will  do  very  well  for  a  ske()tic,  but 
it  is  absurd  for  a  Christian  to  place  h\s  guess  in  such  a  case, 
against  a  plain  statement  of  the  Bible.  No  number  is  mention- 
ed ;  but  he  guesses  how  many  there  were,  and  then  guesses 
about  John's  amount  of  strength,  and  concludes  by  putting 
these  guesses  in  print  as  an  argument ! 


23 

It  is  said  again  tliat  the  phrase  translated  "  niucli  water, 
means  '  many  springs.'  The  ])lural  form  decides  this  point." 
Astonishing!  And  yet  the  same  evangelist  uses  the  same 
phrase  in  Rev.  xiv.  2,  to  denote  the  "deep-sounding  sea."  By 
this  we  may  judge  of  Mr.  T.'s  philology,  and  of  the  way  in 
which  he  makes  words,  "  by  their  own  force,"  decide  a  point. 

II.  The  Baptism  of  Christ.  Most  young  Christians  would 
naturally  feel  an  interest  in  their  Saviour's  baptism,  and  would 
wish,  if  it  were  possible,  to  be  baptized  as  he  was.  And  as 
the  record  in  the  third  chapter  of  Matthew  always  suggests  the 
idea  of  immersion,  millions  have  hence  believed  that  the  Sav- 
iour was  immersed.  Special  effort  is  therefore  made  to  neutral- 
ize the  force  of  this  example.  First  we  are  informed  that  Christ's 
baptism  was  not  Christian.  It  was  only  a  "  Jewish  ceremony." 
The  Mosaic  law,  he  says,  "  required  every  priest  to  be  consecra- 
ted to  his  work  by  being  washed  with  water;  Lev.  viii.  6;  and 
as  this  is  the  only  statute  in  the  code  which  made  it  necessary 
for  him  to  be  baptized,  there  is  no  doubt  but  this  is  the  statute 
to  which  he  referred."  Now  there  is  one  passage  of  scripture 
which  sweeps  all  this  away.  ]t  is  Heb.  vii.  14,  where  Paul 
says,  "  it  is  evident  that  our  Lord  sprang  out  of  Judah  ;  of 
which  tribe  Moses  spake  nothing  concevn'u)^  priesthood."  Here 
the  apostle  asserts,  that  no  statute  of  the  Mosaic  law  touched 
the  priesthood  of  Christ,  who  (verse  13)  "pertaineth  to  another 
tribe,  ofivhich  no  man  gave  attendance  at  the  altar^  Had  Mr.  T. 
never  read  this  passage,  or  did  he  forget  it  ? 

He  adds,  that  we  must  "  either  admit  that  this  was  the  design 
of  Christ's  baptism,  or  deny  that  he  fulfilled  all  righteousness." 
Only  think  of  this!  how  dispassionate!  We  must  either  admit 
that  Jesus  was  baptized  as  a  Jewish  priest  under  the  law  of 
Moses,  or  else  deny  the  Saviour's  words  to  John  :  "Thus  it 
becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness."  I  must  leave  our  au- 
thor and  Paul  to  settle  this.  It  was  the  Holy  Spirit  who  indit- 
ed the  seventh  of  Hebrews. 

The  next  statement  on  Christ's  baptism  is  equally  astound- 
ing. "  The  ceremonial  law  required  that  the  washing  of  the 
priests,  (Lev.  viii.  6,)  when  consecrated  to  their  office,  should 
be  performed  by  sprinkling.  Num.  viii.  7.  According  to  the 
scriptures,  therefore,  Jesus  our  Priest  was  sprinkled."  All  I 
ask  is,  that  the  reader  will  peruse  the  law  of  consecration  in 
the  eighth  chapter  of  Nunjbers,  and  then  ask  himself  if  Jesus 
fulfilled  that  at  Jordan  ? 

In  what  sense  then  did  Christ  fulfil  righteousness  by  his  bap- 
tism ?  I  answer,  the  term  righteousness  here  denotes  practical 
obedience,  as  in  Luke  i.  6.  And  baptism  was  a  part  of  Christ's 
obedience  "  as  a  son,"  because  it  was  an  appointment  of  the  Fa- 
ther, that  thus  he  should  be  made  "  manifest  to  Israel."  John 
knew  not  the  Messiah  personally,  nor  under  what  circumstan- 
ces or  at  what  time  he  should  see  him.     But  he  knew  that  the 


24 

circumstances  were  appointed.  The  event  made  it  plain.  Such 
is  John's  own  account.  See  John  i.  31,  33.  "And  1  knew  him 
not,  but  that  he  should  be  made  manifest  to  Israel,  therefore  am  I 
come,  baptizing  with  water.  And  I  knew  him  not;  but  he  that 
sent  me  to  baptize  with  water,  the  same  said  unto  me,  upon 
whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending  and  remaining  on 
him,  the  same  is  he  which  baptizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  And 
I  saw  and  bare  record  that  this  is  the  Son  of  God."  In  bap- 
tism, therefore,  Christ  is  our  example;  and  it  is  our  duty  for 
the  same  reason  tliat  it  was  his  ;  namely,  it  is  an  appointment  of 
God. 

HI.  The  Baptism  of  the  Three  Thousand.  Mr.  T.  thinks  that 
the  three  thousand  converts  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  could  not 
have  been  immersed,  because  there  ivas  not  ivater  enough  in  the 
city ;  the  brook  Cedron  ivas  dry,  and  no  suitable  place  could  be 
found.  Is  it  possible  that  Mr.  Towne  should  have  allowed 
himself  to  write  this,  when  Dr.  Robinson's  work  on  Palestine 
has  been  so  long  before  the  public  ?  In  that  the  answer  is 
complete.  In  vol.  I.  sec.  vii.  9,  there  is  an  article  of  nineteen 
pages  on  the  supply  of  water  in  Jerusalem.  The  extent  of  the 
cisterns,  reservoirs,  fountains  and  pools,  for  all  the  ])uri)oses 
of  life,  appeared  truly  amazing  to  the  Doctor,  who  observes, 
"that  in  the  numerous  sieges  to  which  Jerusalem  in  all  ages 
has  been  exposed,  we  no  where  read  of  a  want  of  water  with- 
in the  city." 

But  Mr.  T.  says,  "the  Jews  would  sooner  have  admitted  the 
swine  to  the  baths  than  the  disciples."  See  Acts  ii.  46,  47. 
"They  were  daily  in  the  temple,  praising  God,  *  *  having  favor 
with  all  the  people." 

So  I  might  proceed  to  mention  all  the  little  improbabilities 
and  inconveniences  which  a  fertile  imagination  hasthrovyn  up, 
to  discredit  the  obvious  sense  of  the  record  of  baptisms  in  the 
Acts  of  tlie  Apostles.  Proceeding  in  the  same  spirit,  I  could 
just  as  easily  throw  uncertainty  and  great  doubtfulness  over 
the  records  of  some  of  our  own  missionaries  in  Bm-mah.  If 
Dr.  Judson  had  written  some  of  his  communications  in  Greek, 
I  could  show  just  as  plausibly  the  great  improbability  that  by 
the  word  baptizo  lie  always  meant  immerse.  Just  so  in  regard 
to  Oncken  in  Germany  ;  in  cases  where  he  has  baptized  in 
great  haste,  and  amidst  great  trials,  I  could  suggest  a  multi- 
tude of  difficulties  of  the  same  sort,  against  understanding  his 
accounts  always  to  involve  the  idea  of  iinmersion.  One  of  the 
best  attested  facts  in  history,  is,  that  on  the  16th  of  April,  404, 
Chrysostom  itnmersed  three  thousand  Catechumens,  young 
persons  who  had  been  instructed  in  Christianity  at  Constanti- 
nople. This  he  did  with  the  assistance  of  none  but  the  clergy 
of  his  own  church.  And  yet  there  are  as  many  improbabilities 
to  be  suggested  against  this  statement  as  against  any  of  the 
missionary  accounts  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 


25 

Mr.  T.  well  observes,  that  "this  controversy  touches  more 
than  the  siniple  question  of  immersion."  Ay, — it  does  indeed. 
It  touches  the  fundamental  principles  on  which  all  languages 
are  to  be  interpreted;  for  on  those  adopted  here,  there  is  not  a 
page  of  the  Bible  which  gives  forth  a  definite  meaning.  No 
controversy  can  be  settled,  "shadovvs,  clouds,  and  darkness 
rest  upon  the  prospect,"  and  skepticism  becomes  the  dictate 
of  wisdom,  because  faith  can  have  no  foundations. 

The  number  of  instances  in  which  this  work  betrays  igno- 
rance, or  forgetfulness  of  plain  scripture  facts,  is  quite  startling. 
The  writer  speaks  as  if  the  Jews  knew  nothing  of  religious 
immersions.  He  says  that  the  Apostles  "  had  been  educated  to 
regard  sprinkling  as  suffidtnt  for  ceremonial  purification,  and 
from  early  childhood  had  seen  the  leper  and  the  Levites,  and 
indeed  the  vessels  of  the  temple  cleansed  by  sprinkling." 
This  is  something  like  a  statement  which  President  Beecher, 
of  Illinois,  has  ventured  to  make  on  the  same  subject.  He 
says,  "  Nor  is  the  washing  of  the  clothes,  so  often  spoken  of, 
enjoined  by  a  word  denoting  immersion."  Now  for  the  ref- 
utation of  this,  just  turn  to  Numbers  xxxi.  21,  23.  "This  is 
the  ordinance  of  the  law  which  the  Lord  commanded  Moses. 
Every  thing  that  may  abide  the  fire  ye  shall  make  it  go 
through  the  fire,  and  it  shall  be  clean  ;  nevertheless  it  shall  be 
purified  with  the  water  of  separation ;  and  all  that  abideth  not 
the  fire,  ye  shall  makeg-o  through  the  ivater.^^  Now  this  passage 
has  been  in  the  Bible  ever  since  these  writers  were  boys,  and 
how  is  it,  that  to  all  intents  and  purposes  they  never  saw  it? 
Very  different  from  theirs  is  the  statement  of  Calmet,  as  edited 
by  Dr.  Robinson.  He  says,  "  the  priests  and  Levites  before 
they  exercised  their  ministry,  washed  themselves.  (Ex.  xxix. 
4;  Levit.  viii.  6.)  All  legal  pollutions  were  cleansed  by  bap- 
tism, or  plunging  into  water.  'J'o  touch  a  dead  body,  &c.,  re- 
quired purification.  These  purifications  were  not  uniform; 
generally,  people  dipped  themselves  entirely  under  the  water, 
and  this  is  the  most  simple  notion  of  the  word  baptize.''^  (See 
the  article,  Baptism.)  It  is  asked  with  a  tone  of  triumph,  in 
relation  to  Mark  vii.  4,  whether  the  Jews  immersed  their  beds. 
If  any  one  doubt  the  possibility  of  this,  let  him  read  the  article 
in  Calmet  on  Beds;  and  as  to  the  fact,  the  Jewish  canon  in 
Maimonides  runs  thus:  "A  bed  wholly  defiled,  if  he  dips  it 
part  by  part,  it  is  pure."  Their  beds  were  not  like  ours. 
Again  the  Jewish  rule  is,  "  if  any  man  wash  himself  all  over, 
except  the  top  of  his  little  finger,  he  is  still  in  his  unclean- 
ness."  Is  not  a  Jewish  Rabbi,  from  whom  the  learned  have 
quoted  seven  centuries,  better  authority  on  Jewish  customs 
than  a  New  England  clergyman  ? 

Again.  Mr.  T.  has  insisted  with  some  stress,  that' when  the 
eunuch  read  that  passage  quoted  in  the  8th  of  Acts  from  the 
3 


26 

53(1  of  Isaiah,  he  iriiist  have  just  received  an  idea  of  sprinkling 
from  the  last  verse  of  the  52dcha[)ter:  "So  shall  he  sprinkle 
many  nations."  Now  in  the  septuagint  version,  published  in 
Greek,  two  hundred  and  eighty-five  years  before  Christ,  this 
\vord  rendered  sprinkle  is  U'anslated  astonish,  {thaumasontai.) 
Then  it  would  read, 

"  So  sliall  he  astonish  many  nations  ; 
Kings  shall  shut  their  mouths  at  him." 

The  y^arallelism  so  prevalent  in  Hebrew  poetry  confirms  this 
version.  Gesenius  in  his  Hebrew  Lexicon  sanctions  it  and 
throws  light  on  its  origin.  Mr.  T.  says  that  '-Inimersers,  in 
their  anxiety  to  evade  the  point  of  this  argument,  find  fault 
with  our  translators  for  following  the  original  Hebrew  in  this 
place,  and  not  preferring  the  translation  of  the  Seventy.  But 
this  evasion  is  insufficient."  Strange  assertion  !  Here  I  ask, 
did  not  Mr.  T.  know  that  the  version  of  the  Seventy  is  the 
very  one  from  which  Luke  quotes  the  passage  in  question?  The 
Evangelist  himself  takes  the  text  of  the  Seventy,  word  for 
word !  And  well  he  might,  for  by  that  Greek  version,  foreign- 
ers became  acquainted  with  the  Old  Testament,  and  as  Rosen- 
muller  says,  "the  Eunuch  was  undoubtedly  reading  that 
version,  for  he  does  not  appear  to  Jiave  been  taught  Hebrew." 
See  then  how  the  Greek  text  of  Luke  overturns  JMr.  T.'s  ar- 
gument on  this  point,  so  that  his  labor  is  lost,  and  Jiis  censure 
on  us  is  shared  by  an  inspired  Evangelist! 

In  theological  discussion  nothing  has  a  more  injurious  influ- 
ence on  the  mind  of  a  good  man,  than  the  yielding  up  of  the 
feelings  to  the  domination  to  a  party  si)irit.  And  nothing  is  a 
stronger  indication  of  this,  than  the  practice  of  warping  scrip- 
ture to  suit  a  purpose.  I  was  struck  with  an  instance  of  it  a 
day  or  two  since  in  looking  at  a  little  work  of  Rev.  Mr.  Winslow, 
on  Baptism,  who  in  quoting  Leviticus  xiv.  6,  to  establish  his 
point,  has  left  out  the  last  three  words,  which  materially  af- 
fect the  sense.  I  should  be  pained  to  think  that  he  had 
done  this  by  design,  but  am  inclined  to  believe  that  he  copied 
the  quotation  from  another,  inasmuch  as  I  know  the  same 
thing  to  have  been  done  by  a  previous  writer. 

In  taking  leave  of  the  work  before  me,  I  cannot  but  express 
the  hope  that  whatever  controversy  this  sid)ject  may  yet  occa- 
sion here,  all  appeals  to  party  prejudice  may  be  avoided. 
Against  this,  the  love  of  truth  is  the  oidy  safeguard.  In  such 
cases,  nothing  is  more  easy  than  a  retort,  but  of  what  avail  can 
itbe.^  The  learned  Dr.  Wall  professed  himself  ashamed  of 
"  the  profane  scoffs"  of  writers  on  his  own  side,  against  im- 
mersion ;  iind  deennng  it  most  probable,  as  he  did,  that  Jesus 
himself,  that  Mary  the  mother  of  our  Lord,  "the  other  Mary," 


27 

and  the  "  holy  women"  who  were  much  with  Christ,  received 
baptism  in  this  way,  his  religion  kept  the  door  of  his  lips,  and 
prevented  him  from  uttering  against  it  the  charge  of  being  in- 
decorous or  unseemly  for  persons  of  either  sex,  or  any  rank. 
Harsh  epithets  and  insinuations  against  one's  motives  do  not 
require  much  research.  As  for  myself,  if  I  had  written  on 
this  subject  for  mere  party  ends,  I  should  own  that  I  had  com- 
mitted a  great  sin,  and  without  repentance  I  should  expect  to 
meet  the  frown  of  my  Judge  in  the  final  da}'.  Let  me  but  be 
convinced  that  our  Saviour  in  his  last  command  to  his  disci- 
ples did  not  enjoin  "any  particular  way"  of  api)lying  water  in 
the  initiatory  rite  which  he  appointed,  and  it  would  cost  me  no 
sacrifice  openly  to  avow  my  belief  For  in  taki^ng  my  position 
as  a  Baptist,  I  did  not  yield  to  the  prejudice  of  education,  or 
the  current  of  sympathy,  or  the  prevailing  custom,  but  was 
"driven  in  spirit"" to  do  so  from  the  light  of  truth  and  the  dic- 
tates of  conscience.  Seeing  Christ's  command  to  be  explicit, 
I  saw  that  it  was  at  my  peril  to  disobey,  since  he  had  said,  "he 
that  loveth  me  not,  keepeth  not  my  sayings."  Acknowledged 
as  it  is  on  all  hands  that  baptism  is  an  imtiaiory  ordinance, 
that  it  precedes  communion,  just  as  an  oath  of  office  precedes 
all  the  acts  peculiar  to  it,  I  perceived  that  it  was  no  bigotry  in 
any  church  to  insist  on  the  connection.  The  great  question 
before  me  was  this:  What  does  the  command  of  Christ  mean? 
During  the  third  year  of  my  course  in  college,  I  spent  days  and 
nights  in  the  investigation  of  it.  If  at  any  time  a  plausible  ar- 
gument against  immersion  made  a  temporary  impression,  the 
simi)le  study  of  the  Bible  would  erase  it,  till  at  last  I  was  con- 
strained to  differ  from  a  circle  of  most  endeared  associates, 
some  of  whom  are  now  in  heathen  lands  and  some  in  heaven, 
and  to  go  forth  in  baptism,  "following  the  Lord  fully,"  saying 
"thy  word  giveth  light',  and  thy  late  is  the  truth.^^ 

Acquainted  as  I  have  been  with  a  host  of  theological  stu- 
dents of  Piedobaptist  denominations,  I  cannot  but  utter  my 
sincere  conviction,  that  if  before  committing  themselves  pub- 
licly to  the  ministry  they  would  examine  this  suhject  closely 
and  prayerfully,  their  conclusions  would  be  very  different  from 
what  they  are.  How  many  commence  an  examination  ap- 
parently in  good  earnest,  and  soon  finding  themselves  sorely 
pressed  to  differ  from  their  beloved  friends,  begin  to  falter; 
and  ere  long^coolly  saying,  "  well,  it  is  non-essential,"  abandon 
the  matter  entirely.  Hence  follows  an  indifference  to  the 
whole  subject,  or  else  a  morbid  sensitiveness,  which  renders 
the  very  mention  of  it  painful.  But  if  all  candidates  for  the 
Christian  ministry  would  at  the  outset  adopt  the  maxim  of 
Chillingworth,  "  the  Bihle,  the  Bihie  alone  is  the  religion  of 
Protestants,"  very  soon  would  the  unity  of  the  primitive  church 
be  restored,  and  all'rejoice  again  in  owning  "o>e  Lord,  one 
Faith,  one  BaptisiM." 


APPENDIX 


It  lias  been  my  cliief  design  in  the  foregoing  Rej)ly  to  show 
the  true  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo,  on  which  this  whole 
controversy  turns;  for  if  that  be  settled,  all  aiguments  against 
immersion  are  utterly  invalid,  derived  as  they  must  be  from 
custom,  inconvenience,  chin*ch  authority,  or  mere  conjecture. 
Hence  1  have  omitted  to  notice  several  minor  points  connected 
with  the  subject,  as  of  comparatively  no  im]Jortance.  But  as 
the  printer  informs  me  that  there  is  a  blank  i)age  at  the  end  of 
his  form,  I  subjoin  one  or  two  remarks. 

It  is  well  known  that  Baptists  have  generally  regarded 
Paul's  expression  in  Rom.  vi.  4,  buried  ivith  him  by  baptism  into 
death,  S^c,  as  an  allusion  to  the  ancient  practice  of  immersion. 
Mr.  T.  has  written  nearly  nine  pages  to  show  that  there  is  no 
such  reference.  1  have  already  quoted  Tyndal's  opinion  on 
that  point,  and  might  quote  to  the  same  effect,  the  opinions  of 
the  learned  writers  of  every  church  and  every  age.  But  Mr. 
T.  asserts  that  there  is  no  allusion  to  the  outward  act  of  bap- 
tism at  all.  It  relates,  he  says,  to  spiritual  purification.  His 
strong  argument  is  one  which  he  puts  in  italic,  with  two 
notes  of  admiration  following.  "Mark  it,  if  the  burial  is  lit- 
eral, the  death  is  literal  also.  If  there  must  be  a  literal  burial, 
there  must  be  a  literal  death! !"  Now  a  few  words  will  dispose 
of  this.  Let  Paul  himself  answer  it.  He  marks  the  point  of 
similitude.  He  says,  "we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism 
into  death,  that  LIKE  AS  CHRIST  ivas  raised  up  from  the 
dead,  so  we  should  walk  in  newness  of  life."  I  sak  then,  was 
Christ's  resin-rection  a  literal  resurrection  or  not?  Was  that 
only  a  spiritual  resinrection  ?  Why,  this  is  neology.  Some  of 
the'Transcendentalists  (so  called)  speak  in  this  way,  and  the 
author  of  Charles  El  wood  comes  very  near  it;  but  I  should 
grieve  to  think  that  such  a  man  as  Mr.  T.  had  adopted  a  prin- 
ciple of  interpretation  that  would  lead  to  it.  We  believe  thkt 
in  the  case  of  our  Saviour,  there  was  a  literal  bin-ial  and  a  lit- 
eral resurrection,  and  that  the  initiatory  rite  of  the  church,  sets 
forth  this  glorious  fact  in  a  visible  emblem.  Let  any  candid 
inquirer  read  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  leaving  out  the  parenthesis  for  the 


29 

sake  of  connecting  the  first  and  last  parts  of  the  verse  together, 
and  see  if  there  the  apostle  does  not  assert  that  baptism  ex- 
hibits in  Q.  figure  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 

On  page  61,  it  is  said  that  most  of  the  immersions  in  this  coun- 
try, were  derived  from  Roger  Williams.  If  Mr.  T.  had  not  the 
means  of  knowing  the  reverse  of  this  to  be  true,  his  library 
ought  to  be  better  supplied;  if  he  had  the  means  of  knowledge, 
he  ought  not  to  have  made  this  assertion.  Very  few  baptisms 
ill  this  land  trace  their  j>edigree  to  this  source.*  When  New 
England  was  settled,  the  Baptists  abounded  in  our  father- 
land, and  many  emigrated  here  who  were  Baptists,  while 
Roger  Williams  was  a  priest  of  the  Church  of  England. 
During  the  Commonwealth,  the  number  and  progress  of  the 
Baptists  in  England  astonished  all  beholders.  In  1663,  a 
ichole  church,  with  their  pastor.  Rev.  John  Miles,  emigrated 
from  Swansea  in  Wales  to  Wannamoiset,  which  now  bears 
the  name  of  Swansea,  and  is  a  town  of  Massachusetts.  In 
Wales  it  is  well  known  the  Baptists  have  existed  from  the 
earliest  times,  whose  history,  as  Mosheim  says  respecting  the 
Dutch  Baptists,  "is  hidden  in  the  depths  of  antiquity."  f 

On  page  15,  Ewing  is  classed  with  standard  lexicographers 
He  is  a  Congregational  minister  of  Scotland,  and  has  written 
with  ardor  in  favor  of  infant  baptism.  His  arguments  should 
be  fairly  considered,  but  his  authority  as  a  lexicographer  in 
this  case,  is  worth  nothing.  Mr.  T.  might  as  well  appeal  to 
his  coadjutor  in  the  work  before  us,  as  philological  authority. 

*Knowles'  Memoir  of  Roger  Williams. 

t  Eccl.  Hist.  Cent.  16,  Sec.  3,  Chap.  3,  p.  1. 


STRICTURES 


MR  HAGUE'S  REVIEW 


HINTS   TO  AN  INQUIRER 


ON   THE    SUBJECT    OF 


BAPTISM 


BY  PARSONS   COOKE  AND  JOSEPH  H.  TOWNE. 


BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED  BY  WASHINGTON  CLAPP. 

1842. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1842, 

By  Washington  Clapp, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Massachusetts. 


NOTE. 

We  learn  that  complaint  has  been  made  of  our  printing  the  whole 
of  Mr.  Hague's  pamphlet  with  ours.  We  know  it  is  common  in  such 
discussions  to  bandy  complaints  of  garbling.  But  a  complaint  for 
not  garbling,  that  is,  for  publishing  the  whole  with  its  answer,  is  a 
new  thing  under  the  sun.  If  the  matter  of  complaint  be,  that  in  this 
series  Mr.  H.  has  not  the  last  word, — he  stands  in  the  same  position 
as  the  respondent  in  a  court  of  justice,  where  the  party  opening 
makes  the  closing  plea.  Besides,  that  difficulty  can  be  easily  reme- 
died. If  he  will  make  out  a  reply,  and  print  it  in  a  page  in  uniform 
•with  ours,  so  that  the  whole  can  be  bound  together,  we  will  be  happy, 
at  reasonable  rates,  and  at  half  the  expense  at  which  he  can  do  it,  to 
furnish  him  as  many  copies  of  the  series  as  he  may  wish  to  bind 
•with  his  own,  giving  him  in  them  the  last  word. 

If  the  complaint  be,  that  our  publishing  his  work  curtails  the  sale 
by  his  publishers,  we  leave  any  one  to  judge,  whether  we  curtail  it  as 
much  as  we  expand  it,  by  the  mere  fact  of  replying  to  it.  Besides,  his 
publishers,  in  putting  it  forth  without  securing  the  copyright,  as  they 
might  have  done  for  a  trifle,  virtually  gave  it  to  the  public,  and  have 
no  legal  or  moral  right,  and  no  right  on  the  score  of  courtesy,  to  com- 
plain of  any  one  for  publishing  it. 


STEREOTYPED    BY 

GEORGE   A.    CURTIS, 

NEW  ENGLAND  TYPE  AND  STEREOTYPE  FOUNDRY. 


STRICTURES 

ON 

REV.  WILLIAM  HAGUE'S  REVIEW 

OF 

"HINTS  ON  BAPTISM." 


BY  PARSONS  COOKE  AND  JOSEPH  H.  TOWNE. 


Mr.  Hague's  Review  of  our  Hints  on  the  subject  of  Bap- 
tism, we  have  concluded  to  publish  with  our  reply,  and  our 
first  pamphlet ;  that  the  scope  of  each  may  be  understood  at 
a  glance.  Since  our  immersing-  brethren  have  thought  that  a 
reply  to  our  pamphlet  was  called  for,  we  are  pleased  that 
Mr.  Hague  should  have  become  our  respondent.  If  their 
cause  is  made  to  appear  in  a  disadvantageous  light,  they  will 
not  be  able  to  impute  it  to  any  incompetency  of  its  advocate. 

We  choose  not  to  reciprocate  the  compliments  so  liberally 
bestowed  by  Mr.  Hague  in  assertions  of  our  ignorance.  When 
commencing  a  discussion,  we  love  to  feel  that  we  have  to  do 
with  a  man  who  understands  his  subject,  and  with  whom  it  is 
reputable  for  us  to  contend.  A  good  cause  needs  not  the  aid 
of  disrespectful  insinuations.  Since,  as  Mr.  Hague  suggests, 
courtesy  is  on  the  list  of  Christian  duties,  one  of  his  standing 
for  intelligence  and  probity  cannot  fail  to  regret,  that  he  has 
suffered  many  indiscretions  to  escape  him.  We  are  well 
aware,  that  whoever  embarks  in  any  controversy  is  in  dan- 
ger of  losing  here  and  there  his  self-possession.  The  ability 
to  dispute  without  any  symptoms  of  irritation  is  a  rare  attain- 
m.ent.     We  shall  endeavor,  however,  so  far  as  we  have  any- 


84  STRICTURES     ON 

thing  to  do  with  the  present  controversy,  to  keep  before  us 
one  simple  object,  namely,  the  illustration  and  defence  of  the 
truth.  We  fully  agree  with  the  learned  Dr.  Wall,  that 
remarks  designed  merely  to  wound  the  feelings  of  an  oppo- 
nent do  not  require  much  research. 

Mr.  Hague  takes  exception  to  our  use  of  the  term  "  Im- 
mersers,"  and  intimates  it  to  be  "a  contemptuous  epithet." 
That  we  had  no  invidious  design,  must  appear  from  our  seri 
ous  disclaimer,  and  the  reasons  given  in  advance,  why  justice 
to  ourselves  demanded  the  use  of  the  term.  (See  page  4.) 
Mr.  Hague  will  not  contend  that  the  word  itself  does  of  its 
own  force  carry  contempt  with  it,  for  it  is  a  first  principle  in 
his  theory,  that  immerse  is  the  word  by  which  baptize  should 
have  been  translated  ;  and  that  the  word  baptize,  and  of  course 
Baptists,  do  not  rightfully  occupy  a  place  within  the  territory 
of  the  English  language.  So  strong  indeed  has  been  the 
preference  of  his  brethren  for  immerse  as  a  substitute  for  baptize, 
that  they  have  found  it  needful  to  rend  the  Bible  Society,  and 
to  procure  a  new  translation  of  the  inspired  volume,  for  the 
single  purpose  of  introducing  their  favorite  word.  Surely 
they  will  not  say  that  to  call  them  Immersers  is  to  speak  of 
them  contemptuously.  Already  has  one  of  their  newspapers 
announced  the  appearance  of  this  new  Bible  in  our  city. 
We  would  ask  Mr.  Hague,  if  the  new  translation  does  not 
call  John  the  Baptist,  "John  the  Immerser?"  If  it  does, 
or  if  it  uses  some  equivalent  phrase,  we  appeal  from  Mr. 
Hague,  to  the  law  and  testimony  found  in  that  Bible,  to  prove 
that  Immerser  is  by  no  necessity  a  contemptuous  epithet. 

Mr.  Hague  says,  "  With  equal  reason  the-  Baptists  might 
say — We  will  not  call  Congregationalists  by  the  name  which 
they  have  assumed,  because  we  also  are  Congregationalists." 
If  our  calling  ourselves  Congregationalists  were  accompanied 
with  a  denial  that  they  are  Congregationalists,  as  their  as- 
sumption of  the  name  of  Baptists  is  accompanied  by  a  denial 
that  we  baptize,  his  statement  would  then  be  true.  But  is  it  so  ? 
His  allusion  to  the  case  of  Episcopalians  is  equally  unfortu- 


MR.    Hague's   review.  85 

nate  ; — for  prelate  and  prelacy  seemed  to  have  been  coined  to 
avoid  the  implication  that  other  sects  have  no  bishops.  See 
Milton's  prose  works,  passim.  To  beg-  the  question  in  their 
very  name,  is  the  common  artifice  of  sects. 

When  Mr.  Hague  reproves  us  for  "  striving  about  words," 
he  forgets  that  his  main  argument  is  about  a  word,  to  wit, 
baptizo.  It  seems  that  a  ivord  is  all-important  in  the  one  case, 
and  in  the  other  not  worth  striving  for !  But  Mr.  Hague 
really  considers  this  change  of  his  denominational  name  a 
serious  affair,  and  evidently  fears  the  consequences  of  it.  He 
is  too  discerning  not  to  see  that  the  substitution  of  Immersers 
for  Baptists  would  dissolve  a  charm  by  which  multitudes  are 
now  so  completely  spell-bound  that  they  cannot  appreciate 
sound   argument. 

In  bringing  under  examination  Mr.  Hague's  reply  to  ua, 
we  shall  first  call  attention  to  some  important  points  of  our 
argument,  which  he  has  passed  over  in  silence. 

Important  matters  omitted  by  Mr.  Hague. 

The  reader  will  please  to  notice,  that  the  points  of  our 
argument  which  he  has  omitted,  are  such,  that,  if  they  are 
conceded,  the  question  is  settled  against  immersion.  In  his 
appendix,  he  says,  "  Hence  I  have  omitted  to  notice  several 
minor  points,  connected  with  the  subject,  as  of  comparatively 
no  importance." 

These  points  are,  first,  our  whole  argument  drawn  from 
the  signification  of  the  rite.  This  argument  we  consider  of 
itself  decisive  of  the  whole  question  ;  and  notwithstanding 
what  may  be  said  on  other  points,  while  this  argument  re- 
mains unscathed,  we  hold  firmly  our  ground  against  immer- 
sion. Verbal  criticisms  offset  against  the  force  of  facts  will 
not  satisfy.  Let  then  the  reader  turn  back,  and  review  our 
remarks  on  the  signification  of  the  rite,  as  a  branch  of  our 
argument  which  Mr.  Hague  omits  as  ^^  of  comparativehj  no 
importance. ' ' 


80  STRICTURES     ON 

Another  of  these  ^^  minor  points''''  is  our  ichole  chapter  on 
Burial  icith  Christ  in  Baptism.  Aware  that  Immersers  are 
wont  to  place  great  stress  on  their  argument  from  those  figu- 
rative expressions,  which  represent  believers  as  buried  with 
Christ,  we  determined  to  make  its  fallacy  apparent  to  e very- 
reader.  We  believed  that  we  had  succeeded  ;  and  were  con- 
firmed in  that  impression,  when  we  found  that  our  observa- 
tions on  that  subject  were  passed  over  by  Mr.  Hague  with 
merely  a  brief  notice.  It  is  well  known,  that  the  argument 
derived  from  this  source  has  been  of  all  others  the  most  pop- 
ular with  Immersers.  Let  the  reader  then  not  lose  sight  of 
the  fact,  that,  if  Mr.  Hague  has  not  abandoned  this  argument 
altogether,  he  has  placed  it  among  those  "  of  comparatively 

NO   IMPORTANCE." 

He  is  also  very  willing  to  slide  over  our  suggestions  as  to 
the  presumptive  evidence  against  immersion.  He  has  indeed 
a  more  plausible  excuse  for  this,  in  that  this  kind  of  evidence 
is  not  of  itself  proof  against  an  express  command  of  God,  if 
such  a  command  exist.  Yet  it  is  to  the  point,  so  far  as  to 
show,  how  clear  and  decisive  a  command  should  be  made. 
If  a  rite  is  proposed  for  our  adoption,  which  in  form  departs 
from  its  declared  design — which  conflicts  with  the  simplicity 
of  the  gospel — w^hich  is  not  fitted  for  universal  practice — which 
is  not  suited  to  all  times  and  seasons — which  cannot  be  ad- 
ministered to  persons  under  all  circumstances — which  is  cum- 
brous and  inconvenient — which  makes  the  bearing  of  the 
cross  to  be  of  the  nature  of  popish  penance,  and  which  violates 
modesty  and  decency ;  we  may  for  these  reasons  lawfully  de- 
mand strong  and  indisputable  proof  that  God  has  indeed  com- 
manded us  to  observe  such  a  rite.  And  although  Mr.  Hague 
has  thought  it  best  to  slide  over  our  suggestions  on  this  point, 
his  intelligent  readers  will  not  be  so  easily  persuaded  to  fol 
low  his  example. 

Mr.  Hague  attempts  no  reply  to  what  is  said  in  our  pamph  ■ 
let  respecting  the  degree  of  certainty  which  his  cause  de- 
mands.    We  gave  prominence  to  the  fact,  that  the  principle 


MR.  Hague's    review.  87 

of  unchurching  all  Christians,  who  have  not  been  immersed, 
lays  Immersers  under  obligation  to  make  out  a  certainty  that 
our  Lord  has  commanded  immersion,  and  that  they  have  no 
warrant  to  rend  the  church  on  the  ground  of  a  mere  conjec- 
ture. This  issue,  so  repeatedly  tendered  to  him,  he  practi- 
cally evades.  He  is  evidently  anxious  that  his  readers  should 
consider  the  question  one  of  balancing  probabilities.  He 
wishes  them  to  peruse  his  pages  with  the  impression,  that  he 
has  no  more  to  prove  than  his  antagonists.  We,  therefore, 
call  the  special  attention  of  the  reader  to  this  point.  The 
close-communion  theory,  being  necessarily  based  on  a  claim 
of  infallibility,  touching  the  subject  of  baptism,  binds  Mr. 
Hague  to  make  out  his  case  to  a  complete  certainty  ;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  as  we  hold  no  such  theory,  we  have  only 
to  prove  that  there  is  no  such  certainty.  If  we  can  array 
against  immersion  only  a  slight  probability,  our  cause  is 
gained  ; — for  then  Mr.  Hague's  certainty  vanishes.  Now  let 
the  candid  reader  take  Mr.  Hague's  pamphlet,  and,  shutting 
all  opposing  arguments  from  his  mind,  read  it  by  itself,  and 
say  whether  he  has  made  out  more  than  a  mere  probability. 
If  he  has  not,  he  is  judged,  out  of  his  own  mouth,  to  hold 
without  a  warrant  (because  without  a  certainty)  an  attitude 
of  hostility  to  the  peace  and  union  of  Christ's  kingdom. 

What  Mr.  Hague  has  attempted  to  prove. 

He  has  judged  it  expedient  to  lay  out  his  main  strength  in 
an  attempt  to  prove,  that  the  requirement  for  immersion  in- 
heres in  the  very  word  baptize.  In  order  to  sustain  his  posi- 
tion, he  labors  to  show  that  the  word  signifies  IMMERSE, 
AND  NOTHING  ELSE.  The  reader  will  then  understand 
that  the  question  is  not,  whether  the  word  sometimes  means 
to  immerse,  hut  whether  it  always  has  this  signification,  and  no 
other.  Hence,  if  Mr.  Hague  should  multiply  volumes  of 
instances  in  which  this  word  signifies  to  immerse,  it  would 
avail  nothing,  unless  he  should  clearly  show,  at  the  same 
time,  that  it  has  NO  OTHER  MEANING.     While,  on  the 

8* 


88  STRICTURES     ON 

Other  hand,  if  we  can  bring  proof  that  the  word  has  even  one 
other  meaning,  his  labor  is  lost.  If  the  reader  will  run  his 
eye  over  those  instances  which  Mr.  Hague  adduces  to  prove 
liis  point,  he  will  immediately  see  that  they  go  no  further 
than  simply  to  show  that  the  word,  in  those  cases,  means  to 
immerse.  He  will  then  not  fail  to  notice  the  all-pervading 
defect  of  Mr.  Hague's  argument.  Proofs  that  the  word  often 
means  to  immerse,  multiplied  to  any  extent,  are  only  proofs 
that  the  word  often  means  to  immerse.  This  we  have  never 
disputed.  Why  should  Mr.  Hague  trouble  himself  to  prove 
that  which  we  freely  admit  ?  It  is  for  him  to  show,  not  that 
the  word  often  means  to  immerse,  but  that  it  has  no  other 
meaning.     Hie  labor,  hoc  opus  est. 

Before  we  proceed  more  directly  to  point  out  the  insufficiency 
of  Mr.  Hague's  argument  upon  this  word,  we  must  call  atten- 
tion to  certain  unfortunate  and  erroneous  statements  of  facts 
and  authorities.  This  part  of  our  duty  gives  us  no  pleasure  ; 
for  some  of  these  errors  are  of  so  grave  and  serious  a  nature, 
that  the  mere  exposure  of  them  may  subject  us  to  the  impu- 
tation of  being  unreasonably  hard  upon  our  respondent.  We 
charge  him  with  no  intentional  misrepresentations,  and  would 
gladly  spare  his  feelings.  But  the  love  of  truth,  and  justice 
to  our  cause,  will  not  permit  us  to  shrink  from  the  unpleasant 
duty  before  us. 

Mr.  Hague's  Erroneous  Statements  of  Facts  and 
Authorities. 

Error  1.  We  adduced  the  passage,  "He  shall  sprinkle 
many  nations,"  as  proof  that  the  mind  of  the  Ethiopian  eu- 
nuch had  been  directed,  previous  to  his  baptism,  to  sprinkling  ; 
and  hence  we  inferred  a  probability  that  he  was  sprinkled. 
To  this  Mr.  Hague  replies  :  "  Strange  assertion  !  Here  I  ask, 
did  not  Mr.  Towne  know,  that  the  version  of  the  Seventy  (in 
which  the  word  sprinkle  is  rendered  astonish)  is  the  very  one 
from  which  Luke  quotes  the  passage  in  question  ?  The  evan- 
gelist himself  takes  the  text  of  the  Seventy  word  for  word !" 


MR.  Hague's  review.  89 

Such  is  Mr.  Hague's  assertion  ;  and  yet  the  evangelist  does 
not  quote  word  for  word  from  the  Seventy,  but  departs  from 
that  version  in  four  instances  in  less  than  four  lines,  as  will 
be  seen  by  the  note  below.* 

Error  2.  On  page  76,  he  says,  that  Turretin  agrees  with 
him  in  opinion,  as  to  immersion.  Now  what  is  it  to  agree 
with  Mr.  Hague  on  this  subject?  It  is  to  maintain  that  the 
word  has  one  signification,  and  one  only.  But  scarcely  a 
writer  of  equal  note,  since  the  days  of  the  apostles,  expresses 
himself  more  decidedly  against  this  view  than  Turretin.  We 
will  quote  the  substance  of  his  remarks,  and  give  the  reader 
his  own  words  in  a  note  below. f 

"Baptism  (says  Turretin  De  Bapt.)  is  a  word  of  Greek 
origin,  derived  from  bap  to,  to  tinge,  to  imbue,  and  from 
baptizo,  to  dye,  to  immerse.  Plutarch  (on  Superstition) 
says,  baptize  yourseM"  in  the  sea,  that  is,  plunge  yourself  in 

*  The  words  in  brackets  are  used  by  Luke,  and  not  by  the  Seventy. 

0-rcfXit  [oLvtov.]  El  Til  rATTitvcea-ii  [auTOf]  «  ;^P'f^f  aunou  h^S/i  tjjv  {Ji] 
ytviuv. 

t  Baptismus  vox  est  origine  Groeca,  quae  a  verbo  t2et7rTae  deducitur, 
quod  est  ting-ere  et  imbuere,  /^ATrri^uv  intingere  et  inunergere.  Plut. 
de  Supersti.,  'Bx-rri^ov  as  nc  ()tKAir<ruv,  merge  te  in  mare.  Et  in  vita 
Thesei  recitat  versiculum  SjbilloSj  de  AthemSj  qui  aptius  competit 
Ecclesise. 

Ao-KUC  ^ctTTTl^il,  SvVAl  JlE   TCI  OU  Qi/UilC  iJTl. 

Mergeris  uter  aquis,  sed  non  submergeris  unquam. 
Hinc  plus  est  quam  i-rtrroxu^uv,  quod  est  leviter  iunatare,  et  minus 
quam  S'uiuv,  quod  est  pessum  ire,  id  est,  ad  exitium  fundum  petere. 
Quia  vero  fere  aliquid  mergi  et  tingi  solet,  ut  lavetur,  et  qui  UTimergtin- 
tur  Solent  abiui;  hinc  factum,  ut  quemadmodum  apud  Hebrseos  '^'2'D 
quod  LXX  vertunt  ^xTni^a  2  Reg.  v.  14,  etiam  accipiatur  pro  frn, 
quod  est  lavare.  Ibid.  Ita  apud  Graecos  to  fiit-nrTi^uv,  per  metalep 
sim,  pro  eodem  usurpetur.  Marc.  vii.  4.  "  Judaei  non  edunt  ex  foro 
reduces,  nisi  lavarint  se  ;  tiv  /jt»  0a.7rTi<rmTJ.t."  Nee  aliter  intelligenda 
sunt  baptismata  calicum,  urceorum,  et  lectorum  apud  Judeos  usitata 


90  STRICTURES    ON 

the  sea ;  and  in  his  life  of  Theseus  he  quotes  the  Sibylline 
verse  concerning  the  city  of  Athens,  which  more  fitly  repre- 

Et  J'ia<poj)oi  /iatn-Tia-juot  Judaeis  praescripti,  de  quibus  Heb.  ix.  10  ;  et 
superstitiosae  lotiones,  a  traditione  veterum  acceptge,  de  quibus  Marc, 
vii,  4.  Unde  Pharisaei  propterea  dicti  sunt  Baptistai  Justino.  Et 
secta  rm  >ijuspo  ^Avnta-rcoVf  de  qua  Epiph.  haer.  17.  Q.ui  quotidianum 
baptismum  urgebant,  et  coiitendebant,  sic  ablntum  A7roKovt(7^dLi  »«/  ity- 
vi^io-B'Xi  ct-rra  7rn(r>ig  cttrisLc.  Ex  hac  vero  duplici  significatione  mer- 
gendi  et  abluendi,  duae  aliae  metaphoricae  deduclae  sunt.  Prior  ut 
baptismus  ponatur  pro  afflictione  et  calamitate.  *  *  *  *  Posterior  ut 
transferatur  ad  miraculosam  donorum  Spiritus  Sancli  effusionem,  quia 
in  animam  efTundi  solent  ut  earn  imbuanl  et  abluant,  Matt.  iii.  1 1 ,  Act.  i. 
6,  Tit.  iii.  5,  ex  Veteri  Testamento,  ubi  Spiritus  communicalio  per  aqua- 
rum  effusionem  solet  adumbrari.  Isa.  xliv.  3,  Joel  ii.  28.  *  *  *  Cere- 
moniale  est,  quod  in  ritu  consistit,  nimi  ablutio,  quae  fit  per  aquam ; 
I  Pet.  iii.  21,  sive  per  aspersionem,  sive  per  immersionem.  *  *  * 
3.uod  (sc.  aspersio)  institution!  Christi  minime  repugnat ;  itaexeinplis 
ecclesiae  apostolicae  et  primitivae  earn  secutae  confirmari  potest.  *  *  * 
Ita  ubi  magna  fuit  credentium  multitudo,  ut  quum  uno  die  ter  mille 
baptizati  sunt,  aspersionem  potius  quam  immersionem,  quae  vix  ac  ne 
vix  quidem,  tam  exiguo  temporis  spatio,  commode  peragi  potuit  adhib- 
itam  fuisse,  dubitari  potest.  Item  quum  domatim  administrabatur 
baptismus,  ubi  probabile  non  est,  semper  adfuisse  aquae  copiam  suffi- 
cientem  ad  immersionem ;  maxime  si  inopinato  res  ageretur.  Act. 
xvi.  27,  etc.  In  primitiva  ecclesia  baptismus  clinicorum  et  aegroto- 
rum  dabatur,  qui  sine  dubio  per  immersionem  fieri  non  potuit.  Ra- 
t.ones  etiam  pro  aspersione  non  desunt  variae.  1 .  Quia  vox  0'j.7rTt(j-/uou 
et  verbum  ^ciTrTi^icrQui,  non  tantum  de  immersione  dicitur,  sed  et  de  as- 
persione. Marc.  vii.  4.  2.  Quia  res  significata  baptismi  nomine 
aspersionis  designatur.  3.  Quiaaspersiosuflicit,  ad  analogiam  ;  nee  a 
quantitate,  sed  a  qualitate  aquae  pendet  vis  baptismi.  4.  Quia  sub. 
Vet.  T.  dabantur  variae  lotiones,  et  pavrKr/uci,  tam  aquae  quam  san- 
guinis, ad  quas  Christus  respicit,  in  institutione  baptismi ;  unde 
sanguis  Christi,  qui  est  res  significata,  vocatur  sanguis  ^cLvrnrfxcu. 
5.  Quia  aspersio  longe  commodior  est,  tum  ad  prospiciendum  sanitati 
baptisatorum,  quae  detrimentum  poterat  pati  ex  immersione,  in  locis 
frigidioribus,  maxime  in  tenellis  infantibus,  tum  ut  parcatur  pudori, 
qui  in  adultis  ex  totius  corporis  nudationc,  oriri  poterat;  cujus  causa 
legimus  olim  adhibitas  fuisse  diaconissas,  mulieribus  nudandis. 


MR.  Hague's  review.  91 

senls  the  church — '  Thou  mayest  be  baptized,  O  bladder,  but 
it  is  not  permitted  to  thee  to  go  under  the  water.'  Hence  it 
means  more  than  lightly  to  float  upon  the  surface,  and  less 
than  to  be  overwhelmed  or  submerged.  But  because  any- 
thing is  usually  merged  and  wet,  in  order  that  it  may  be 
washed,  and  those  who  are  immersed  are  generally  washed,  it 
happens"  that  the  Hebrew  word,  which  the  Seventy  render 
baptize,  2  Kings  v.  15,  is  equivalent  to  the  word  rendered 
wash  in  the  same  passage.  Likewise  with  the  Greeks  bap- 
tize is  used,  tropically,  to  signify  washing.  (Mark  vii.  4.) 
'The  Jews,  when  they  come  from  the  market,  except  they 
wash  (baptize)  they  eat  not.'  In  the  same  sense  must  we 
understand  the  washing  of  cups,  pitchers  and  couches,  cus- 
tomary with  the  Jews  ;  also  '  the  divers  baptisms'  commanded 
in  the  Jewish  ritual,  and  referred  to  in  Heb.  ix.  10  ;  and  the 
superstitious  washings  received  by  tradition  from  the  elders. 
On  account  of  these  washings,  Justin  calls  the  Pharisees  Bap- 
tists. The  sect  of  which  Epiphanius  speaks,  as  insisting  on 
being  washed  everyday,  expecting  thereby  to  be  purified  from 
all  sin,  was  called  Every-day-Baptists.  From  this  double 
signification  of  'plunging  and  washing,  two  other  metaphoric 
meanings  are  derived.  The  first,  is  that  which  puts  baptism 
for  afflictions.  *  *  *  *  The  second,  is  the  application  of  the 
term  to  the  miraculous  effusion  of  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
because  they  are  poured  out  upon  the  soul,  to  imbue  and  purify 
it.  (Matt.  iii.  11,  Acts  i.  5,  Tit.  iii.  5.)  This  manner  of 
speaking  is  taken  from  the  Old  Testament,  where  the  com- 
munications of  the  Spirit  are  shadowed  forth  by  the  pouring 
out  of  water.  (Isa.  xliv.  3,  Joel  ii.  28.)  *  *  *  *  Baptism, 
viewed  as  a  ceremony,  consists  in  washing,  which  is  done  by 
water,  (1  Pet.  iii.  21,)  either  hy  sprinkling  or  immersion. 
*****  As  sprinkling  is  by  no  means  repugnant  to  the 
institution  of  Christ,  so  it  can  be  shown  by  examples  that  the 
apostolic  and  primitive  church  practised  it."  [He  here  very 
justly  distinguishes  between  the  apostolic  and  the  primitive 


92  STRICTURES    0:fT 

church.]  The  examples  which  he  adduces  are  as  follows : 
"  Where  there  was  a  great  multitude  of  believers,  as  when  in 
one  day  three  thousand  were  baptized,  it  is  hardly  possible  to 
doubt  that  sprinkling  was  practised,  rather  than  immersion, 
which  could  not  have  been  administered  in  so  short  a  time. 
Sprinkling  too  must  have  been  practised  when  the  rite  was 
administered  in  private  houses,  where  it  is  highly  unreasona- 
ble to  suppose  that  water  was  provided  convenient  for  immer- 
sion, particularly  in  those  cases  in  which  they  were  called  to 
perform  the  ceremony  on  sudden  and  unexpected  occasions. 
In  the  primitive  church,  baptism  was  administered  to  the  sick, 
on  their  beds,  and  of  course  not  by  immersion," 

"The  reasons  in  favor  of  sprinkling,  are, — 1.  The  words 
baptism  and  baptize  are  used  to  designate  not  immersion  only, 
but  also  sprinkling.  (Mark  vii.  4,  Luke  xi.  38.)  2.  The 
thing  signified  by  baptism  is  designated  by  sprinkling.  (1  Pet. 
i.  2,  Heb.  x.  22.)  3.  Sprinkling  answers  all  the  purposes 

of  analogy,  the  essence  of  baptism  consisting  not  in  the  quan- 
tity of  water,  but  in  the  use  of  that  element  itself.  4.  Under 
the  Old  Testament,  there  were  various  washings  and  sprink- 
lings, both  of  water  and  blood,  and  upon  these  Christ  had  his 
eye  in  the  institution  of  baptism  ;  whence  the  blood  of  Christ, 
which  is  the  thing  signified,  is  called  the  blood  of  sprinkling. 
(Heb.  xii.  24.)  5.  Sprinkling  is  far  more  suitable  to  health, 
which  is  liable  to  be  injured  by  immersion,  in  cold  climates, 
especially  in  the  case  of  tender  infants.  It  also  spares  the 
sense  of  modesty.  The  ancients  felt  the  difficulty  arising 
from  the  exposure  of  the  whole  naked  body,  and  appointed 
deaconesses  to  disrobe  the  women." 

Such  is  the  testimony  of  the  learned  and  profound  Turretin, 
whom  Mr.  Hague  has  summoned  upon  the  stand  as  a  wit- 
ness against  us.  When  brought  into  court,  and  allowed  to 
speak  for  himself,  he  not  only  gives  his  testimony  in  our  favor, 
but  most  eloquently  pleads  our  cause  for  us.  We  have  quo- 
ted him,  however,  not  for  the  sake  of  his  arguments,  but  to 
show  what  little  confidence  we  can  place  in  Mr.  Hague's  cita- 


MR.  Hague's  review.  93 

tion  of  authorities.  Turretin  does  not  allow  that  bapto,  the 
radical  word,  means  to  immerse  at  all,  and  gives  baptizo 
another  signification  before  that  of  immerse.  He  sustains  our 
use  of  the  Sibylline  verse.  He  affirms  that  the  Septuagint 
and  the  New  Testament  writers  give  the  word  the  meaning 
of  to  wash  ;  and  says  that  the  Pharisees  were  called  "  Bap- 
tists" on  account  of  their  superstitious  washings.  He  gives 
the  word  the  double  sigmjication  of  plunging  and  vjashing 
He  quotes  examples  to  show  that  sprinkling  was  practised  by 
the  apostles  and  primitive  Christians,  and  then  argues  strongly 
in  favor  of  sprinkling. 

Now  Mr.  Hague,  as  an  honest  man,  is  bound  to  thank  us 
for  correcting  his  error.  And  let  him  not  impute  to  us  (as  he 
did  in  a  similar  case,  in  respect  to  Ewing,  page  82,)  the  pur- 
pose of  quoting  Turretin /or  authority ;  and  declare  his  author- 
ity worthless,  because  he  does  not  agree  in  sentiment  with 
himself.  We  quote  him,  not  for  the  value  of  his  authority, 
hut  to  expose  a  misrepresentation. 

Error  3.  Mr.  Hague  says,  page  76,  that  Luther  asserts 
immersion  to  be  the  only  proper  mode,  as  the  only  one  an- 
swering to  the  signification  of  baptism,  and  that  he  so  rendered 
the  Greek  word  in  his  version  of  the  New  Testament.  Now 
this  is  directly  contrary  to  fact.  In  Mark  vii.  4,  Luther 
translates  the  word  baptize  by  a  word  as  near  our  own  word 
wash  as  the  two  languages  will  admit,  (waschen.)  The 
word  baptism,  as  applied  to  pots  and  couches,  &c.,  in  the  same 
verse,  he  also  renders  by  zu  waschen.  The  same  is  true  of 
Luke  xi.  38.  The  German  word  which  Luther  uses  when 
baptism  stands  for  the  religious  rite,  is  not  the  word  which 
means  to  immerse,  if  we  may  place  any  reliance  upon  the 
two  German  lexicons  now  lying  upon  our  table.  The  word 
taufen,  in  Kiitner  and  Nicholson's  Lexicon,  has  only  the 
meanings  which  appear  in  the  note  below.*     Immersion  is 

*  Taufen — To  initiate  into  the  church  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism. 
To  baptize  or  christen  a  child,  Jew,  or  Turk,  &c.     To  give  a  name.    To 


94  STRICTURES    ON 

not  among  them.  The  only  meanings  given  in  Weber's  Ger- 
man and  English  dictionary,  are, — to  baptize,  to  christen. 
The  same  dictionary  puts  down  to  the  English  word  immerse, 
the  German  words  eintauchen,  untertauchen,  versenken,  ver- 
tiefen.  The  word  taufen,  by  which  Luther  renders  baptize, 
does  not  appear  as  one  of  the  meanings  of  immerse,  or  of 
either  of  its  synonymes,  such  as  plunge,  dip,  sink  or  duck. 
Now  all  this  is  very  strange,  if  that  word  so  plainly  means 
to  immerse,  and  nothing  else.  And  it  is  still  more  strange  that 
Mr.  Hague  should  have  made  such  an  assertion.  Whatever 
may  be  said  of  Luther's  sentiments  as  to  immersion,  his  trans- 
lation of  the  word  baptize  is,  in  all  the  numerous  cases  which 
we  have  examined,  just  that  which  was  most  consistent  with 
his  practice. 

Error  4.  On  page  70,  Mr.  Hague  says  of  Scapula,  (whom 
he  praises  as  "  one  of  the  most  celebrated  lexicographers  of 
Europe,")  that  he  gives  to  bapto  and  baptizo  the  meaning  of 
immerse,  (used  in  regard  to  those  things  which,  for  the  sake 
of  dyeing  or  washing,  we  wash  in  water;)  likewise  to  dye, 
which  is  done  by  immersing ;  and  these,  together  with  the 
application  of  the  word  to  the  Christian  rite,  he  says  are  all 
the  meanings  given  by  Scapula.  But  Scapula  does  give  other 
meanings.  He  tells  us  that  the  word  signifies  (8<}>aX5c  yiviffBut) 
to  be  upon  the  sea — to  draw  up — to  fill  for  drawing  up.  He 
also  gives  examples  under  the  sense  of  to  tinge,  (which  it  is 
strange  Mr.  Hague  did  not  see,)  to  wit,  that  of  painting  or 
staining  the  hair,  and  pointing  a  spear  with  poison,  things 
not  done  by  immersion. 

Error  5.  Mr.  Hague  says  that  "  Mr.  Towne  seems  dissat- 
isfied with  the  moderate  statements  of  Dr.  Woods  and  Profes- 
sor Stuart,  and  apologizes  for  what  he  calls  their  concessions 
arising  from  their  liberality."  Now  this  is  a  fabrication  of 
Mr.  Hague's  entire  !     We  neither  said  nor  intimated  any  such 

give  a  name  in  a  solemn  manner.  To  mix  with  water,  to  dilute  or 
sophisticate. 


MR.  Hague's  review.  95 

thing,  in  relation  to  either  of  those  distinguished  men.  We 
spoke  of  them  with  approbation,  and  quoted  their  language  as 
sustaining  our  views.  What  reliance  can  we  place  on  Mr. 
Hague's  citation  of  authorities,  when  he  quotes  from  our  book 
what  is  not  to  be  found  in  it?  We  did  say,  that  "  some  of 
our  writers  on  the  subject,  from  a  desire  to  show  a  generous 
and  liberal  spirit,  have  made  unwarrantable  concessions." 
The  names  of  Messrs.  Stuart  and  Woods,  however,  are  not 
mentioned  within  many  pages  of  this  sentence  ;  nor  are  they 
here  referred  to  by  even  the  remotest  implication.  If  Mr. 
Hague  has  seen  fit  to  imagine  that  we  had  those  gentlemen 
in  our  eye,  we  say  that  he  takes  too  great  liberties.  He  must 
not  publish  his  surmises  for  facts. 

Error  6.  On  page  80,  Mr.  Hague  says,  "  the  writer  speaks 
as  if  the  Jews  knew  nothing  of  religious  immersions  ;"  and 
then  proceeds  to  tell  us,  as  if  he  considered  us  ignorant  of  the 
fact,  that  in  legal  purifications  "  the  people  sometimes  dipped 
themselves."  Let  the  reader  turn  back  to  page  9,  and  he 
will  find  that  we  recognise  the  fact,  of  which  Mr.  Hague  so 
gravely  informs  us.  We  there  state  that  "Paul  calls  the 
different  washings  done  in  the  tabernacle  service,  baptisms, 
and  that  among  them  all  there  is  not  an  instance  oi  immersion 
hy  the  priests.  In  all  cases  where  the  subjects  bathed,  there 
was  no  official  administration.''^  Now  let  the  reader  decide 
whether  we  spoke  as  if  the  Jews  knew  nothing  of  religious 
immersions.  That  Mr.  Hague  should  aflirm  that  our  "  work 
betrays  startling  instances  of  ignorance  or  forgetfulness,"  and 
follow  up  that  imputation  with  the  above  sentence,  is  some 
temptation  to  retort  railing  for  railing.  But  we  forbear. 
We  take  occasion  to  say,  however,  that  when  a  person  was 
required  by  the  law  of  Moses  to  be  immersed,  the  assistance 
of  a  priest,  or  crowd  of  spectators,  was  not  a  part  of  the  cere- 
mony. We  challenge  Mr.  Hague  to  point  out  a  single 
instance  of  immersion  by  the  hands  of  a  priest.  The  person 
bathed  himself.     This,  both  nature  and  decency  seem  to  ren- 


96  STRICTURES    ON 

der  necessary.  And  from  this  fact,  which  Mr.  Hague  is  very 
willing-  that  his  readers  should  overlook,  we  might  fairly 
infer,  that  the  gospel,  if  it  had  required  immersion,  would 
have  required  each  individual  to  immerse  himself. 

Error  7.  On  page  71,  Mr.  Hague  says,  "  The  principle  that 
baptizo  by  its  own  force  determines  the  way  of  applying  water, 
is  clearly  set  forth  by  those  three  great  lexicographers  of  the 
New  Testament,  Schleusner,  Wahl,  and  Bretschneider." 
Astonishing!  Schleusner  defines  baptizo,  1.  to  immerse  in 
water;  2.  to  wash,  sprinkle,  or  cleanse  with  water,  (abluo, 
lavo,  aqua  purge  ;)  3.  to  baptize  ;  4.  to  pour  out  largely,  (pro- 
fundo  largiter,  &c.)  Only  one  of  Schleusner's  definitions 
restricts  the  meaning  to  immersion.  Three  of  them  denote 
the  application  of  the  fluid  by  affusion.  Wahl  defines  bap- 
tizo, first,  to  wash,  to  perform  ablution,  to  cleanse.  Bret- 
schneider's  lexicon  gives  no  ground  for  Mr.  Hague's  asser- 
tion, for  he  defines  baptize,  to  wash,  to  perform  ablution,  &c. 
We  have  never  yet  seen  a  lexicon  which  sustains  Mr.  Hague's 
position.  We  may  well  apply  to  him  a  remark  which  Pro- 
fessor Stuart  applies  to  the  great  champion  on  his  side  of  the 
controversy,  Mr.  Carson.  "Mr.  Carson,^''  says  the  professor, 
"  lays  down  some  very  adventurous  positions  in  respect  to  one 
meanings  and  one  only,  of  words,  which,  as  it  seems  to  me,  every 
lexicon  on  earth  contradicts,  and  always  must  contradict.''^ 

Error  8.  On  page  71,  Mr.  Hague  asserts  that  Hedericus, 
Stephanus,  Suicer,  Passow,  and  Post,  "declare  an  entire 
immersion  to  belong  to  the  nature  of  baptism."  Of  two  of 
these  we  know  nothing.  Hedericus  (see  his  lexicon)  defines 
baptizo,  immerse,  wash,  sprinkle.  Stephanus  defines  it,  im- 
merse, wash,  cleanse.  Passow  defines  it,  immerse,  wash, 
sprinkle. 

Error  9.  On  page  70,  Mr.  Hague  asserts  that  there  is  not 
a  lexicon  in  the  world,  which  does  not  give  as  the  primary, 
the  leading  meaning  under  baptizo,  to  immerse,  to  sink,  to 
submerge,  either  two  or  all  of  them."  This  is  not  true.  The 
lexicon  of  Flacciolatus  and  Forccllinus  gives  the  meanings 


MR.  Hague's  review.  97 

in  the  following  order  :  Baptizo,  abluo,  lavo,  i.  e.  to  perform 
ablution,  to  wash.  The  lexicon  of  Constantius  gives  the 
meaning  of  bapto,  the  root  of  baptizo,  thus  : — Bapto,  to  tinge, 
trj  wash,  to  color,  to  immerse,  to  tinge  or  tincture  with  oint- 
ment, to  imbue,  &c.  Buck,  in  his  dictionary,  says,  '■'■its 
radical,  proper,  and  primary  meaning  is,  to  tinge,  to  dye,  to 
wet,  or  the  like  ;  which  primary  design  is  effected  by  differ- 
ent modes  of  application."  Wahl,  in  his  lexicon,  defines  it, 
first,  to  wash,  to  perform  ablution,  to  cleanse  ;  secondly,  to  im- 
merse, &c.  This  is  sufficient  to  show  the  incorrectness  of  Mr. 
Hague's  statement.  See  Pres.  Beecher's  Letter,  on  Lexicons. 

Error  10.  It  is  stated  in  our  essay,  that  the  word  baptize 
denotes  the  application  of  water  in  divers  ways;  that  all 
lexicographers  concur  in  this  fact,  and  that  no  intelligent  im- 
merser  can  deny  it.  Mr.  Hague  is  an  intelligent  Imraerser, 
and  he  denies  it.  Yet  our  statement  is  true  ;  for  Mr.  Hague's 
denial  is  neutralized  immediately  by  his  own  citations.  He 
appeals  to  Robinson's  lexicon,  as  one  which  confines  the 
meaning  to  immerse,  and  yet  he  quotes  other  meanings.  The 
same  is  true  of  others  named  by  him.  Mr.  Hague  seeks  in- 
deed to  evade  the  point,  by  saying  that  all  the  other  meanings 
are  figurative,  or  derived,  or  come  by  implication.  This 
will  be  more  fully  answered  hereafter.  It  is  enough  to  say 
here,  that  other  meanings  are  other  meanings,  come  from  what 
source  they  may.  And  the  denial  in  that  form,  though  put 
forth  in  capitals,  is  virtually  no  denial ;  for  our  assertion  was 
preceded  by  a  recognition  of  the  principle,  that  several  dis- 
tinct meanings  of  a  word  may  be  derived  from  one  another. 

The  reader  is  now  prepared  to  estimate  correctly  the  va- 
lidity of  Mr.  Hague's  claim  to  all  the  lexicographers.     We 

SOLEMNLY  AVER  THAT  NO  LEXICOGRAPHER  WITHIN  OUR  KNOW- 
LEDGE,  IN  ANY  COUNTRY,  AGREES  WITH    HIM.       DoCS    Scapula 

agree  with  him?  No.  Do  Flacciolatus  and  Forcellinus? 
No.  Does  Constantius ■?  No.  Does  Hedericus  ?  No.  Does 
Bretschneider ?    No.    Does  Schleusner?    No.    Does  Wahl? 


98  STRICTURES    ON 

No.  Does  Stephanus  ?  No.  Does  Parkhurst  ?  No.  Does 
Ainsworth?  No.  Does  Leigh?  No.  Does  Cole?  No. 
Does  Passow?  No.  Do  Suidas?  Coulon?  Greenfield? 
No.  DoesZonoras?  No.  Does  Gross?  No.  Does  Sehre- 
velius,  that  great  master  and  critic  of  the  Greek  tongue? 
No.  Carson  admits  that  the  lexicographers  are  against 
him.  But  Mr.  Hague  does  more  than  simply  set  his 
authority  in  the  scale  against  the  authority  of  lexicogra- 
phers, the  most  eminent  the  world  has  ever  seen.  They 
afl[irm  that  baptizo  signifies  affusion  as  well  as  immersion. 
But  Mr.  Hague  contends  that  it  signifies  only  iinmersion,  and 
will  have  it  that  the  lexicographers  agree  with  him  !  This  is 
wonderful !  How  shall  we  account  for  it  ?  Would  Mr. 
Hague  deceive  his  confiding  readers  ?  Impossible.  Has  he 
never  consulted  the  lexicographers  for  himself? — Confessedly 
there  is  here  something  of  mystery  which  we  cannot  evolve. 
We  must  leave  the  task  with  our  readers. 

Learned  Critics  and  Theologians. 

With  a  little  swell  of  language,  Mr.  Hague  repeatedly 
asserts  that  all  the  learning  in  the  world  sustains  his  opinion 
as  to  immersion.  "  The  literature  of  the  world,"  he  says,  "is 
with  us."  This  is  comforting,  if  true.  But  our  preceding 
examination  of  Mr.  Hague's  assertions  will  excite  the  suspi- 
cion, that  this  also  must  be  taken  with  some  grains  of  allow- 
ance. 

We  have  already  seen  what  kind  of  support  Turretin  gave 
to  the  immersing  principle,  when  called  into  court  to  testify. 
Perhaps  it  may  be  well  to  summon  a  few  other  learned  critics 
and  theologians  upon  the  stand,  as  Mr.  Hague  has  appealed 
to  such  authority. 

Flacciolatus,  in  illustrating  the  meaning  of  the  word, 
gives  an  account  of  certain  effeminate  priests,  at  Athens, 
called  Baptai,  from  hapto,  to  tinge,  because  like  women  they 
tinged,  that  is,  painted  their  faces.  He,  of  course,  found 
something  in  the  word  besides  immersion. 


MR.  Hague's  review.  99 

Mr.  Hague  will  probably  admit,  that  Vossius  was  not  desti- 
tute of  some  share  of  the  learning  of  the  world.  He  was  one 
of  the  most  distinguished  scholars  of  the  sixteenth  century,  and 
professor  in  two  of  the  seminaries,  then  the  most  celebrated. 
In  one  place  he  says,  that,  "As  in  the  purifications  under 
the  law,  affusion  or  sprinkling  was  sufficient,  so  in  the  Chris- 
tian church,  we  esteem  affusion  sufficient  for  baptism."  He 
says,  in  another  place,  "It  is  clear  that  the  ancient  church 
baptized  naked  ;  and  there  are  some  who  think  the  custom 
ought  to  be  observed  now,  and  deny  that  affusion  is  baptism. 
If  we  discover  that  the  apostles  immersed ,  it  does  not  follow 
that  they  always  observed  this  mode.  Sometimes  they  must 
have  baptized  by  pouring,  on  account  of  the  multitude,  as 
when  they  baptized  three  thousand  in  one  day."  He  also 
gives  an  example  of  baptism  by  affusion,  by  one  Laurentius, 
a  martyr.  "  One  of  the  soldiers,"  he  says,  "  named  Romanus, 
bringing  a  cup  of  water  and  offering  it  to  him,  seized  the  op- 
portunity to  he  haptized.^^  This  case  shows  that,  in  the  third 
century,  affusion  was  so  common  a  mode  of  baptism,  that  a 
soldier  could  offer  himself  for  it,  asking  no  questions.  Vos- 
sius also  objects  to  immersion.  He  quotes  another  example 
in  which  a  person,  even  though  baptized  naked,  was  not  im- 
mersed : — "  and  when  he  had  stripped  off  his  clothes,  he 
poured  ivater  upon  his  head.'^* 

Walfried  Strabo,  in  his  work,  De  Rebus  Eccles.,  says, 
"  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  many  were  baptized,  and  are  still 
baptized,  not  only  by  immersion,  but  by  pouring  water  from 
above  upon  them."f 

Duns  Scotus,  Dis.  3.  "In  baptism  the  essential  part  is  one 
thing,  to  wit,  washing  or  purifying  ;  according  to  Ephes.  v., 
where  the  apostle  calls  baptism  the  washing  of  water ;  and 

*  Et  cum  expoliasset  eum,  fudit  super  caput  ejus, 
t  Nclandum,  non  solum  mergendo  sed  etiam  de  super  fuadendo 
multos  baptizatos  fuisse,  et  adhuc  posse  baptizari. 
9* 


100  STRICTURES    0^ 

the  accidental  part  another,  namely,  whether  the  ablution 
or  purifying  be  perfornaed  by  this  or  that  mode."* 

Thomas  Aquinas  declares,  that  as  the  purification  of  the 
soul  is  meant  by  baptism,  it  is  not  essential  which  way  it  is 
done. 

Calvin,  in  his  commentary  on  Acts,  (viii.  38,)  after  speak- 
ing of  the  former  prevalence  of  the  custom  of  immersing, 
says — "  The  custom  now  prevails,  of  the  minister's  sprinkling 
water  only  on  the  head  or  body.  But  so  trifling  a  difference 
in  a  ceremony,  ought  not  to  be  esteemed  of  such  importance 
as,  on  account  of  it,  to  divide  the  church,  or  disturb  it  with 
controversy.  For  the  ceremony  indeed,  AS  FAR  AS  IT 
HAS  BEEN  COMMITTED  TO  US  BY  CHRIST  JE- 
SUS, I  would  rather  suffer  death  than  it  should  be  taken 
from  us.  But  since  in  the  symbol  of  water  we  have  the  tes- 
timony both  of  our  purification  and  of  our  new  life  ;  since  in 
water,  as  in  a  glass,  Christ  shows  us  his  blood,  that  we  may 
apply  it  for  our  purification  ;  since  he  teaches  us  to  be  renewed 
by  his  Spirit,  that  we  may  be  dead  to  sin  and  alive  to  righte- 
ousness, it  is  certain  that  there  is  nothing,  which  belongs  to 
the  substance  of  baptism,  wanting  in  the  prevailing  practice. 
Hence,  from  the  beginning,  the  church  allowed  itself  to  differ 
somewhat  as  to  the  form,  while  sure  of  retaining  the  substance.^' 
Again,  he  says,  "  Whether  the  person  baptized  be  wholly 
immersed,  and  whether  Ihrice  or  not,  or  whether  water  be 
only  poured  or  sprinkled  upon  him,  IS  OF  NO  IMPOR- 
TANCE." Here  is  a  comment  on  Mr.  Hague's  assertion 
that  Calvin  agreed  with  him  in  opinion,  while  he  differed  in 
practice.  "  We  might  well  insert  a  note  of  admiration  here, 
but  we  forbear."  Did  Calvin  think  that  the  command  to  bap- 
tize carried,  of  its  own  force,  the  command  to  immerse  ? 
How  then  could  he  say,  that  the  substance  of  that  command 

*  In  Baptistno  aliquid  est  de  essentia,  ut  ahlutio ;  juxta  illud  ad. 
Eph.  v.,  ubi  apostolus  baptismum  appellat  lavacrum  aquaj ;  aliud  vero 
accideiitium,  nempe  ut  ablatio  hoc  vel  ilio  modo  fiat. 


MR.  Hague's  review.  101 

is  realized  in  sprinkling?  How  could  he  affirm  that  in  sprink 
ling  we  have  the  rite  as  far  as  it  has  been  committed  to  us  b\ 
Christ  Jesus?  (Quatenus  nobis  a  Christo  tradita  est.)  Is  Mr. 
Hague  ready  to  adopt  as  his  own  the  sentiments  and  language 
of  this  illustrious  reformer?  Mr.  Hague's  quotation  from 
Calvin  is  true;  BUT  NOT  THE  WHOLE  TRUTH.  It 
illustrates  admirably  our  remarks  on  page  14.  Calvin  says 
that  baptize  signifies  to  immerse  ;  but  he  does  not  say  that  it 
means  nothing-  but  immersion,  nor  that  immersion  is  essential 
to  Christian  baptism,  nor  that  it  was  the  only  mode  practised 
by  the  ancient  church.  Probably  Mr.  Hague  had  never  read 
Calvin,  and  cited  him  on  the  authority  of  some  controversialist 
on  his  side  of  the  question. 

The  celebrated  Wolf  was  a  man  of  some  learning.  But 
he,  in  his  Curee  Philol.,  does  not  exactly  chime  in  with  Mr. 
Hague's  opinions.  In  his  remarks  on  the  passage — "Go, 
and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing,"  &c.,  he  says — "  Baptizo  de- 
notes not  only  immersion,  but  also  sprinkling  and  affusion.''^ 
And  again,  on  Acts  viii.  he  says — "  it  signifies  both  to  immerse 
and  to  tinge ;  and  both  forms  were  practised  by  the  ancient 
church,  which  is  evident  from  ancient  monuments  described 
by  Mabillionius." 

Athanasius,  as  Yossius  informs  us,  did  not  censure  the 
Arians  for  sprinkling,  but  for  sprinkling  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity,  when  they  did  not  believe  it.  His  words  imply  that 
he  considered  sprinkling  baptism. 

With  an  air  of  triumph  Mr.  Hague  quotes  Beza,  "Me 
author  of  the  Latin  poems,'^  as  agreeing  with  him,  (page  77.) 
But  if  Mr.  Hague  will  adopt  Beza's  sentiments,  there  will  be 
no  further  need  of  controversy.  This  writer,  after  showing 
that  the  phrase  "  in  the  water"  determines  nothing,  says,  "  I 
have  noted  this,  lest  any  one  should  suppose  there  is  any  force 
in  this  particle,  as  those  seem  to  persuade  themselves,  who  think 
that  children  are  not  rightly  baptized,  unless  immersed. ' '  A  gain , 
he  says,  after  admitting  that   baptizo   signifies  immersion, 


102  STRICTURES    ON 

"  YET  BAPTIZO  IS  TAKEN  MORE  LARGELY  FOR 
ANY  KIND  OF  WASHING,  WHERE  THERE  IS  NO 
DIPPING  AT  ALL."  Here  you  see  disclosed  tlie  true  sen- 
timents of  Beza.  And  yet  Mr.  Hague  and  the  Watchman 
are  proclaiming  to  the  world  that  Beza  was  a  close  commun- 
ion immerser  !  We  are  almost  tempted  to  exclaim,  0  shame  ! 
where  is  thy  blush?  But  it  is  said,  "  Beza  says  that  baptizo 
signifies  immersion."  So  do  Messrs.  Towne  and  Cooke. 
But  does  Beza  say  that  it  means  nothing  hut  immersion? 
Does  Beza  say  that  immersion  is  essential  to  the  rite  ?  Does 
Beza  say  that  none  are  rightly  baptized,  unless  they  are 
immersed  ?  That  he  never  intended  to  be  so  understood,  is 
evident  from  the  above  quotations  from  his  writings. 

Zanchius,  the  intimate  friend  of  the  famous  Peter  Martyr, 
was  a  celebrated  scholar,  and  at  one  time  read  lectures  both 
in  divinity  and  in  the  Aristotelian  philosophy  in  the  seminary 
at  Strasburg.  He  says,  "  Baptizo  doth  as  well  signify  to 
dye,  and  simply  to  sprinkle,  as  to  immerse." — Cultu  Dei.  lib 
1.  Chap.  16. 

Paraeus  says,  "Baptism,  with  the  Greeks,  imports  any 
washing  or  cleansing,  whether  it  be  done  by  dipping  or  sprink- 
ling." Para?us  was  an  eminent  scholar  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, and  made  by  prince  Casimir  a  professor  at  Heidelberg. 
In  1589  he  published  the  German  Bible,  with  notes. 

Musculus  was  a  distinguished  scholar  of  tlie  sixteenth  cen- 
tury. In  1519  he  was  settled  as  professor  of  theology  at 
Bern.  He  also  wrote  Latin  poetry,  and  left  many  valuable 
commentaries  on  the  Scriptures.  Musculus  says,  "  It  is  free 
for  the  church  to  baptize  either  by  dipping  or  sprinkling." — 
Wall's  Hist. 

Lynwood  says,  "  Dipping  is  not  to  be  accounted  of  the 
essence  of  baptism,  but  it  may  be  given  also  by  pouring  or 
snrinkling." — Do. 

Trelactius  says,  "  Baptism,  according  to  the  etymology  of 
it,  signifies  commonly  any  kind  of  ablution  or  cleansing." — 
Lib.  2.  de  Baptismo. 


MR.  Hague's  review.  103 

Tilenus  says,  "If  we  regard  the  etymology  of  the  word 
baDtism,  it  signifies  dipping  and  also  sprinkling." — Disput. 
de  Baptismo,  p.  883. 

Let  us  next  hear  a  few  additional  words  from  Luther,  who 
seems  to  be  a  favorite  with  Mr.  Hague.  In  his  homilies  on 
baptism,  which  v/ere  not  written  with  any  reference  to  the 
mode,  Luther  throws  out  here  and  there  a  casual  expression, 
which  gives  a  clue  to  his  opinions.  In  the  passage — "He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized,''^  &c.,  he  uses  tingo,  a  word 
employed  frequently  to  designate  simply  to  wet.  He  says, 
*'  It  must  be  known  and  believed  that  it  (that  is,  the  water  of 
baptism)  is  such  that  by  it  we  are  purified  and  cleansed,  and 
receive  what  the  Scripture  calls  the  washing  of  regeneration." 
This  is  not  the  style  of  speech  common  with  Immersers. 
Again,  he  thus  speaks  of  baptism  : — "  Concerning  this  ablu- 
tion and  cleansing  from  sin,  David  says — '  Wash  me  from 
iniquities,  and  cleanse  me  from  my  sin.  Sprinkle  me  with 
hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean.'  And  the  prophet — '  I  will 
sprinkle  clean  water,'  &c."  It  will  be  perceived  that  Lu- 
ther is  here  showing,  that  the  true  end  of  baptism  is  not 
accomplished,  except  the  soul  is  cleansed  from  sin ;  but  the 
costume  of  the  external  rite  is  evidently  alluded  to.  In  another 
paragraph,  preserving  the  same  connection  between  the  sign 
and  the  thing  signified,  he  says,  "Baptism  is  nothing  else 
than  to  be  washed  and  cleansed  in  the  red  and  precious  blood 
of  Christ.  Hence  Peter  says  of  those  baptized,  that  they 
were  sprinkled  by  the  blood  of  Christ.^'  (1  Pet.  i.  2.)  In  his 
annotations,  Luther  calls  the  legal  washings,  commanded  by 
Moses,  various  baptisms.  In  view  of  these  quotations,  the 
reader  will  see  with  what  truth  it  is  claimed,  that  Luther 
found  in  the  word  baptize  the  necessary  and  exclusive  mean- 
ing of  immersion. 

Erasmus  ranks  among  the  first  scholars  of  modern  times. 
He  calls  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ  baptism. 

Jerome  says,  "  The  Lord  Jesus  declares,  I  have  also  anothet 


104  STRICTURES    ON 

baptism  to  be  baptized  with.  You  baptize  me  with  water,  that 
I  may  baptize  you,  as  a  witness  for  me,  with  your  own  blood.^^ 
This  was  incidentally  said,  and  it  shows  that  Jerome  found 
something  besides  immersion  in  the  word  baptism.  The  mar- 
tyr surely  was  not  immersed  in  his  own  blood.  And  yet 
Jerome  calls  the  sheddi?ig  of  one's  blood  in  martyrdom  a  bap- 
tism. There  are  no  limits,  however,  to  some  men's  ingenu- 
ity. Since  Mr.  Hague  has  contrived  to  immerse  a  lake  in  the 
blood  of  a  mouse,  he  may  attempt  (and  with  equal  success  !) 
to  make  out  a  case  of  immersion  here. 

In  Marturologio  Adonis,  ad.  3.  Cid.  Majus,  we  read, 
"  Whom  the  blessed  Callistus,  after  enjoining  fasting,  cate- 
chised, brought  water  and  baptized,  (allata  aqua  baptizabit.) 
Here  the  water  loas  brought — of  course  not  for  immersion. 
But  nevertheless  it  was  brought  for  baptism. 

Bassilius,  speaking  of  the  forty  martyrs,  says — "  They 
were  baptized,  not  with  water,  but  with  their  own  blood."* 
They  were  not  immersed  in  their  own  blood,  and  yet  they 
were  baptized  with  it. 

Peter  Martyr,  the  celebrated  reformer  and  theologian  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  at  different  times  professor  of  divinity 
at  Strasburg,  Oxford,  and  Zurich,  thus  gives  his  testimony  :— ■ 
''  Baptizo  signifies  not  only  to  dip,  but  in  any  ivay  to  tinge  or 
wet.'' 

Alstedius,  another  eminent  scholar  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, professor  of  philosophy  and  theology,  at  Hesborn,  in 
Nassau,  and  afterwards  at  Wettemberg,  in  Transylvania, 
says,  "  The  term  baptism  signifies  both  immersion  and  sprink- 
ling, and  of  consequence  ablution."  And  so  say  Wolledius, 
Doederlein,  Danaeus,  Ursinus,  Lightfoot,  Wickliffe,  Yorri- 
long,  Bonaventure,  Mastricht,  Kecherman,  and  a  host  of 
others. 

Mr.  Hague  will  not  dispute  the  authority  of  Tertullian, 

*  E^'X7ni7bi)  oux  it  IS  ATI  a.KKiv  Tc  icT/a  ai/xATi. 


MR.  Hague's  review.  105 

who  lived  within  one  hundred  years  of  the  apostles.  This 
venerable  father  says,  "that  baptizo  means  not  only  to  im- 
merse, but  also  to  pour."  (Mergere  non  tantum,  sed  et  per- 
fundere.) 

Will  Mr.  Hague  pretend  that  the  most  learned  theologians 
and  biblical  critics  of  our  own  country  are  with  him?  Dr. 
DwiGHT  says  that  "  the  inimary  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo 
is  cleansing.''''  Barnes  says,  "Baptizo  signified  originally 
to  tinge,  to  dye,  to  stain."  Professor  Stuart,  after  stating 
that  he  could  see  no  evidence  that  immersion  was  exclusively 
the  mode  of  Christian  baptism,  affirms  that  "  if  any  one  main- 
tains the  contrary,  it  must  be  either  because  he  is  unable 
rightly  to  estimate  the  nature  or  power  of  the  Greek 
language  ;  or  because  he  is  influenced  in  some  measure  by 
party  feeling  ;  or  else  because  he  has  looked  at  the  subject  in 
only  a  partial  manner,  without  examining  it  fully  and  thor- 
oughly." 

In  view  of  these  facts,  in  what  light  appears  Mr.  Hague's 
turgid  boast,  that  all  the  learning  of  the  world  sustains  his 
side  of  the  controversy?  He  is  confounded  by  his  own  wit- 
nesses. What  is  the  testimony  of  Wolf  ?  Calvin?  Athana- 
sius?  Beza?  Zanchius?  Vossius?  Parseus?  Musculus? 
Lynwood  ?  Trelactius  ?  Tilenus  ?  Erasmus  ?  Jerome  ? 
Bassilius?  Peter  Martyr?  Alstedius?  Tertullian?  Wol- 
ledius  ?  Doederlein  ?  Lightfoot  ?  Danaeus  ?  Ursinus  ? 
Wickliffe  ?  Bonaventure  ?  Kecherman  ?  Vorrilong  ?  Mas- 
tricht?  Thomas  Aquinas?  Wall?  Leigh?  Lombard? 
Morus?  Whitaker?  Maldonet?  Piscator?  Walker? 
Pool? — ^but  we  forbear.  Time  would  fail  us  to  allude  even 
by  name  to  the  numerous  Greek  scholars  and  biblical  critics, 
in  Europe  and  our  own  country,  who  give  no  countenance 
whatever  to  Mr.  Hague's  principles.  Their  united  voice  is 
against  him.  They  may  admit,  indeed,  that  immersion  is  one 
meaning  of  the  Greek  word.  But  never  do  they  contend  for 
this  meaning  exclusively.  Never  do  they  maintain  that  with- 
out an  immersion  there  is  no  baptism.     These  illustrious  men 


106  STRICTURES    ON 

are  made  to  support  such  principles — how  ?  By  keeping  bach  a 
part  of  the  truth,  as  in  the  case  of  Ewing,  page  14.  We  ven- 
ture to  affirm  that,  in  almost  every  instance,  where  a  critic 
of  any  notoriety  is  cited  by  the  advocates  for  immersion,  he 
would  serve  them  no  purpose,  if  permitted  to  utter  his  entire 
sentiments. 

There  is  one  expedient  adopted  by  Mr.  Hague,  in  order  to 
bring  the  learned  on  his  side,  which,  if  not  original  with  him, 
is  at  least  quite  amusing.  Apprehending  some  difficulty  from 
the  well-known  fact  that  the  great  body  of  the  learned  of  the 
present  day  practise  sprinkling,  and  fearing  that  this  might 
lead  his  readers  to  suspect  the  correctness  of  his  statement, 
he  ventures  the  presumptuous  assertion,  that,  if  they  do  not 
agree  with  him  in  practice,  they  do  agree  with  him  in  senti- 
ment. What !  do  Christian  scholars  universally  believe  im- 
mersion essential  to  the  very  nature  of  baptism,  and  yet  prac- 
tise sprinkling  ?  This  is  a  sweeping  charge  of  insincerity. 
That  they  so  generally  practise  sprinkling  is,  to  our  minds, 
satisfactory  proof  that  they  do  not  consider  immersion  posi- 
tively enjoined  by  the  command  of  our  Lord  to  baptize.  Mr. 
Hague's  assertion  implies  that  they  are  acting  hypocritically. 

We  have  now  destroyed  the  whole  force  of  Mr.  Hague's 
Reply,  and  might  lay  aside  our  pen.  But  as  w-e  commenced 
with  a  purpose  to  leave  no  suggestion  of  his  unanswered,  we 
shall  proceed  briefly  to  notice  his 

Principles  of  Piiilologv. 

The  grand  principle  of  Mr.  Hague's  philology  seems  to  be 
this — that  if  all  the  various  meanings  of  a  word  can  be  traced^ 
hy  any  relation,  hoioever  fanciful,  to  any  one  of  those  meanings^ 
that  one  embraces  the  ivhole  in  itself  Such  a  principle,  if  ad- 
mitted, would  lead  directly  to  the  conclusion,  that  no  word  in 
the  language  has  more  than  one  meaning.  In  his  remarks 
on  the  several  definitions  given  to  the  word  baptizo  in  Robin- 
son's Lexicon,  Mr.  Hague  says — "That  abbreviated  word, 


MR.  Hague's  review.  107 

denoting  hy  implication,  is  very  important  in  this  case,  and 
involves  the  princiole  which  Mr.  Towne  has  overlooked,  and 
by  overlooking  it,  he  misunderstands  the  lexicons."'  It  seems, 
then,  that  we  have  not  yet  learned  to  read  the  lexicons,  be- 
cause we  see  not  how  to  trace  all  the  meanings,  which  branch 
off  by  implication,  to  one  meaning,  and  make  the  whole  family 
of  significations  attached  to  each  word  but  one  meaning. 
Upon  this  principle  the  whole  controversy  is  in  fact  made  to 
turn.  Mr.  Hague  assumes  it  as  a  just  principle  of  philology, 
and  bases  his  reasoning  upon  it.  Let  us  test  this  principle  by 
some  English  word. 

Take,  for  example,  the  word  spring.  The  first  meaning 
which  occurs,  is  a  leap  or  jump.  Then  others  follow — as, 
elastic  power — an  elastic  body — motives — a  fountain  of  water 
— a  season  of  the  year — a  crack  in  a  mast — the  source  of  a 
thing.  Let  the  reader  now  see  if  he  cannot  trace  these  vari- 
ous significations  back  to  the  first,  to  wit,  a  leap  or  jump. 
The  idea  of  elastic  power  comes  from  the  first  by  implication, 
because  one  jumps  by  means  of  elastic  power ;  and  so  with 
the  rest.  Now  if  Mr.  Hague  should  say  that  a  crack  in  a 
mast  is  the  same  by  "  implication^''  with  motives  of  conduct, 
or  a  fountain  of  water  the  same  with  the  spring  of  a  watch, 
he  would  only  be  carrying  out  that  favorite  principle  of  phi- 
lology, which  he  complains  that  we  overlook.  He  might 
just  as-well  say  that  spring,  when  used  to  designate  a  part 
of  a  watch,  means  the  same  as  when  used  to  designate  a 
fountain  of  water,  as  to  say  that  baptize,  when  used  oi  lather- 
ing one^s  face,  means  the  same  as  when  used  of  Lathing  in 
the  sea.  These  surely  are  different  actions,  expressed  by  the 
same  word.  Let  the  reader  apply  Mr.  Hague's  principle  of 
one  meaning  to  the  following  sentence ; — In  the  spring  of 
1840,  a  man  by  the  name  of  Spring,  made  a  spring  over  a 
ditch,  and  fell  into  a  spring  on  the  opposite  side,  and  broke 
the  spring  of  his  watch. 

Permit  us  to  remind  Mr.  Hague  that  secondary  meanings 


108  STRICTURES    ON 

shoot  forth  from  the  primarrj  signification  of  almost  all  words ; 
a  grand  characteristic  of  lang-uage  which  he  seems  wholly  to 
overlook.  They  proceed  generally  from  cause  to  effect ;  and 
it  not  unfrequently  happens  that  the  primary  meaning  is 
merged  or  lost  in  some  remote  secondary.  For  the  sake  of 
illustration,  let  us  suppose  that  baptizo  signified  originally 
to  immerse.  As  ivashing  is  sometimes  the  effect  of  immersing, 
the  word  might  easily  pass  from  its  first  specific  signification, 
to  denote  simply  the  effect;  and  in  process  of  time  wholly 
displace  the  specific  meaning.  On  the  same  principle,  it 
might  come  to  mean  to  dye,  and  to  tinge,  without  retaining 
the  idea  of  immersion.  As  purification  is  an  effect  of  wash- 
ing, this  meaning  might  engraft  itself  upon  washing,  and  ex- 
press at  last  the  whole  force  of  the  word  :  so  that  to  baptize 
and  to  purify  would  be  equivalent  terms.  This  meaning  the 
word  might  very  naturally  assume  in  standing  for  a  religious 
rite,  the  main  design  of  which  was  to  symbolize  the  purifica- 
tion of  the  soul.  If  such  is  the  nature  of  language,  an  attempt 
to  chain  words  to  one  meaning  is  fruitless ;  and  to  contend 
for  the  primary  idea,  in  all  the  subsequent  usages,  is  ridicu- 
lous. 

Mr.  Hague  says,  that  baptizo  must  determine  the  meaning 
by  its  own  force,  or  there  is  no  clue  to  the  author's  meaning. 
If  Mr.  Hague  says  this  of  some  fragment  of  a  sentence,  we 
reply  that  it  does  not  determine  the  sense  by  its  own  force, 
and  there  is  no  clue  to  the  author's  meaning.  The  example 
which  he  himself  cites  {lixmirAi  «  vclvc)  is  admirably  in  point. 
He  says  that  the  lexicons  agree  in  saying,  that  this  means, 
the  ship  sinks.  But  would  he  have  known  it,  if  the  lexicons 
had  not  said  it  ?  And  could  the  lexicographers  have  discov- 
ered it,  if  they  had  not  seen  the  word  in  connection  with  other 
words?  That  they  could  not,  is  clear  ; — for  those  same  lexi- 
cographers tell  us  that  the  word  sometimes  means  simply 
{t^tKoi  yivivbiti)  to  be  on  the  sea.  The  ivord  itself  does  not 
forbid  our  translating  the  phrase,  the  ship  is  washed  with  the 


MR.  Hague's  review.  109 

waves,  or  the  ship  is  launched,  &c.  The  two  words  alone 
furnish  no  clue  to  the  author's  meaning.  We  will  give 
another  example,  as  ts  cra,ast  mt^u  ii2a<p«.  Will  Mr.  Hague  tell 
us  the  precise  meaning  of  the  Greek  verb  here"?  Will  he 
give  us  the  author's  meaning?  According  to  his  own  princi- 
ples, he  should  be  able  to  do  it ;  and  should  at  once  pronounce 
the  meaning  to  be  this — his  body  was  immersed  or  drowned. 
But  this  is  very  far  from  being  the  author's  meaning,  as  any- 
one may  see  by  turning  to  Dan.  v.  21,  where  the  whole  pas- 
sage reads  thus:  "and  his  body  (Nebuchadnezzar's)  was 
wet  or  sprinkled  with  the  deuj  of  heaven."  There  were  cer- 
tain idolatrous  priests  at  Athens,  called  baptai,  from  jictTrra. 
Why  was  this  name  given  them  1  Mr.  Hague  must  necessa- 
rily say,  that  they  were  so  called  because  they  had  been  im- 
mersed, or  were  immersers.  But  was  this  the  fact?  We  will 
answer  this  question  hereafter.  We  see,  therefore,  that  there 
may  be  sentences,  or  a  fragment  of  a  sentence,  as  for  instance 
that  quoted  by  Mr.  Hague,  in  which  the  word  by  its  own  force 
does  not  give  the  author'' s  meaning.  This  fact  proves  that  it 
has  more  than  one  specific  meaning. 

But  if  Mr.  Hague  intended  to  say  this  of  every  complete 
sentence  where  this  word  occurs,  it  is  an  easy  task  to  show 
his  mistake.  If  his  assertion  is  true  of  baptizo,  it  is  true  of  all 
other  important  words.  The  principle  of  philology,  then,  in- 
volved in  his  assertion  is  this,  that  words  must  determine  their 
sense  by  their  own  force,  or  there  is  no  clue  to  the  author's 
meaning.  Let  us  bring  this  principle  to  the  test.  Take  the 
English  word  bar,  which  means  a  rail  thrown  across  a  pas- 
sage— an  enclosure  in  a  tavern — any  obstruction — an  enclo- 
sure in  a  court — an  association  of  lawyers — a  line  in  music, 
&c.  All  these  meanings  attach  to  the  word.  Now  read  the 
following  line,  and  say  whether  the  word  determines  the  sense 
by  its  own  force  : 

"  Must  I  new  bars  to  my  own  joys  create  ?" 

Here  we  cannot  determine,  by  the  simple  force  of  the  word, 


110  STRICTURES    ON 

whether  bars  mean  tavern  bars,  or  the  enclosure  in  a  court,  or 
the  rails  of  a  fence,  or  any  obstruction,  or  a  line  of  music,  or 
a  company  of  lawyers.  And  yet  there  is  no  difficulty  in  getting 
at  the  author^ s  meaning.  Mr.  Hague  complains  that  our  prin- 
ciples of  philology  "  turn  order  into  confusion."  But  if  he  can 
have  no  order  in  language,  till  each  word  has  only  one  specific 
meaning,  expressing  by  its  own  force  a  definite  proposition, 
he  will  not  see  the  chaos  of  speech  reduced  to  order  in 
his  day. 

Mr.  Hague's  unsuccessful  attempt  to  explain  away 
OUR  Citations  from  the  Classics. 

In  order  to  maintain  his  position,  Mr.  Hague  must  needs 
explain  away  our  examples.  Out  of  the  eleven  cases  cited  by 
us,  he  has  selected  four,  in  which  he  thinks  he  discovers  im- 
mersion. Suppose  we  grant  what  he  affirms  of  these  four, 
there  still  remain  seven,  for  whose  immersion  he  makes  no 
provision.  From  the  course  which  he  has  adopted,  we  are 
left  to  infer,  that  he  thought  it  best  to  select  those  examples 
the  most  susceptible  of  a  plausible  evasion,  expecting  that  the 
reader  would  lose  sight  of  the  rest,  in  the  dust  raised  by  his 
criticism.  We  ask  the  reader,  therefore,  to  run  his  eye  again 
over  those  examples  in  which  the  inventive  fancy  of  Mr.  Hague 
cannot  find  even  a  figurative  immersion.  They  are  such  as 
the  following:  "the  face  lathered  (baptized)  with  tawny 
rushes" — "a  garment  stained  (baptized)  with  blood  drawn 
by  a  sword" — "  the  hand  wet  (baptized)  by  pressing  a  sub- 
stance,"&c.  &c.  Out  of  eleven  cases,  seven  have  passed  un- 
scathed. 

We  now  turn  to  the  less  fortunate  examples. 

"  To-day,  ye  bearers  of  water,  draw  up  (baptize)  none." 
Mr.  Hague  might  have  spared  his  ridicule  here,  since  we 
share  it  in  the  good  company  of  his  favorite  Scapula.  Scap- 
ula says  that  this  word  is  used  for — to  draw  up,  and  to  fill  for 


MR.  Hague's  review.  Ill 

drawing  up.  Mr.  Hague  confines  it  to  the  last  of  the  two 
senses,  and  says  it  cannot  have  the  first  meaning.  We  leave 
him  to  settle  the  point  with  his  venerated  Scapula,  reminding 
him,  at  the  same  time,  that  Hesychius  and  several  other 
lexicographers  concur  wuth  Scapula. 

The  next  case  is  the  following  : — "  When  it  drops  upon 
the  garments,  they  are  dyed,"  (baptized.)  Mr.  Hague  labors 
hard  to  find  immersion  here.  But  the  garments  are  dyed, — 
how?  By  what  process ?  By  dipping?  No.  Mr.  Carson, 
one  of  the  most  learned  and  able  waiters  on  Mr.  Hague's  side 
of  the  question,  generously  gives  up  this  example.  Hippo- 
crates employs  the  word,  he  says,  "  to  denote  dying  by  drop- 
ping the  dying  liquid  on  the  thing  dyed.  It  is  surely  not 
dying  by  dipping."  The  reader  will  judge,  whether  drop- 
ping is  dipping,  or  whether  the  idea  of  dipping  is  to  be  found 
in  a  process  of  dying  by  dropping  !  This  case  is  itself  suffi- 
cient to  overthrow  Mr.  Hague's  main  position.  He  says  that 
the  word  baptism  denotes  an  action,  and  that  action  must 
necessarily  be  dipping.  He  affirms  that  immersion  and  bap- 
tism are  equivalent  terms  ;  and  that  the  Englishman  might  as 
well  speak  of  an  immersion  by  sprinkling,  as  the  Greek  of  a 
baptism  by  sprinkling.  But  Hippocrates  spoils  all  this ;  for 
he  uses  baptism  to  denote  a  mode  of  action,  which  he  informs 
us  was  dropping.  This  proves  that  Mr.  Hague  has  yet  to 
learn  the  true  import  of  the  word.  The  English  scholar 
could  never  speak  of  an  immersion  by  sprinkling  ;  nor  could 
the  Greek  have  spoken  of  a  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  drop- 
ping, if  Mr.  Hague's  views  of  that  word  were  correct.  That 
Hippocrates  does  call  a  mode  of  coloring  by.  the  dropping  of 
the  liquid  baptism,  is  conclusive  proof  that  Mr.  Hague  does 
not  understand  the  word.  He  would  give  it  limits  which  it 
spurns. 

The  next  example  is  that  of  "  the  lake  baptized  with  the 
blood  of  a  mouse."  We  have  already  introduced  Mr.  C ar- 
id* 


112  STRICTURES   ON 

SON  to  the  reader.  Surely  his  authority  will  not  be  dispU' 
ted.  "  To  suppose  that  there  is  here  any  allusion  to  the  literal 
immersion  or  dipping  of  a  lake,  says  Mr.  Carson,  is  a  mon- 
strous perversion  of  taste.  The  lake  is  said  to  be  dyed,  not 
to  be  dipped,  or  poured,  or  sprinkled.  There  is  in  the  vjord  no 
reference  to  the  mode.  What  a  monstrous  paradox  in  rhetoric 
is  the  figure  of  the  dipping  of  a  lake  in  the  blood  of  a  mouse  ! 
Never  was  there  such  a  figure.  The  lake  is  not  said  to  be 
dipped  in  blood,  but  to  be  dyed  imth  blood.'''' — Beecher,  Art. 
Bib.  R.,  Jan.  1840.  (We  have  no  partiality  for  the  entomo- 
logical tribe  to  which  Mr.  Hague  refers,  (see  p.  73,)  and  no 
inclination  to  share  the  benefits  of  their  attentions  with  him 
and  the  playful  student.) — The  reader  will  observe  that  Mr. 
Carson  concedes  this  example.  He  allows  that  the  word  is 
used  here  to  denote  an  eifect,  without  reference  to  the  mode 
by  which  it  is  produced.  But  if  it  may  be  so  used  here,  why 
not  in  other  places?  If  Mr.  Hague's  views  respecting  the 
word  were  correct,  it  could  not  be  used  in  a  single  instance 
as  Homer  here  uses  it. 

The  next  case  is  that  of  the  Sibylline  verse.  We  presume 
Mr.  Hague  will  not  stake  his  reputation  as  a  scholar  on  the 
assertion,  that  Jwai,  by  its  own  force,  means  to  drown.  Yet 
he  quotes  with  approbation  a  loose  translation,  in  which  such 
a  sense  is  given.  He  says,  "  this  is  poetry,  and  good  sense." 
All  that  may  be,  and  yet  not  be  the  meaning  of  the  passage 
in  question.  The  other  rendering,  he  says,  is  nonsense. 
But  is  it  nonsense  to  speak  of  Athens  as  too  buoyant  to 
sink  1 

Now  let  the  reader  judge,  whether  Mr.  Hague  has  success- 
fully explained  away  our  examples  from  the  classics.  Seven 
remain  wholly  unscathed.  Two  of  the  four  which  he  at- 
tempts to  wrest  from  us,  his  own  friend  acknowledges  to  be 
fairly  ours.     For  the  other  two  we  feel  no  anxiety. 

We  sought  in  our  essay  to  make  the  subject  under  discus- 


MR.  Hague's  review.  113 

sion  perfectly  intelligible  to  the  English  reader ;  and  there- 
fore avoided  as  much  as  possible  the  costume  of  the  schools, 
and  quotations  from  foreign  languages.  At  the  same  time, 
we  designed  to  base  our  reasonings  on  sound  philological 
principles.  Aware  that  the  advocates  for  immersion  contend 
that  the  word  baptize  has  but  one  meaning,  and  that  they  rely 
chiefly  upon  its  pagan  use,  we  concluded  to  give  the  reader 
a  few  quotations  from  pagan  writers,  showing  that,  even 
among  them,  it  designated  different  modes  of  applying  a 
liquid.  We  might  have  added  others.  The  sense  of  ^o  dye  is 
very  extensively  given  to  ^cLTrrco.  Compounded  with  other 
words,  it  denotes  a  dyer,  a  dye-house,  a  dying-vat,  &c.  As 
a  compound,  it  is  used  in  the  sense  of  gilding,  or  coloring 
with  gold.  The  priests  at  Athens,  called  baptai,  "  were  so 
called  from  fiama,  to  tinge  or  paint,  because,  like  women,  they 
tinged  their  faces  with  paint."  In  Arrian — Expedition  of 
Alexander: — Tot/f  St  7ra>yaiva(  xiyti  Kt^p^o;  on  0ct7rTa>v'Tcti  IvcTo/ : 
"  Nearchus  relates  that  the  Indians  dye  their  beards."  Mr. 
Carson  admits  that  they  did  not  di/e  their  beards  by  immer- 
sion.— Bib.  R.,  Jan.  1840.  Although  the  reader  has  before 
him  sufficient  proof,  that  the  word  is  capable  of  denoting  more 
than  one  mode  of  applying  a  liquid,  we  request  him  to  peruse 
carefully  the  following 

Letter  from  Edward  Beecher,  D.  D.,  President  of  Illi- 
nois College,  Jacksonville,  Illinois. 

Rev.  Jos.  H.  Towne. 

Dear  Brother, — With  your  request  that  I  would  notice  the 
remarks  of  Mr.  Hague  on  myself,  and  also  that  I  would  fur- 
nish you  with  certain  facts  and  authorities,  of  which  I  spoke 
I  cheerfully  comply. 

The  design  of  Mr.  Hague's  remarks  on  me  is,  to  produce 
the  belief  that  I  have  been  inexcusably  inaccurate  in  the  state- 


114  STRICTURES    ON 

ment  of  plain  scripture  facts,  through  ignorance  or  forgetful- 
ness.  His  words  are, — "  This  is  something  like  a  statement 
which  President  Beecher,  of  Illinois,  has  ventured  to  make  on 
the  same  subject.  He  says,  '  Nor  is  the  washing  of  the 
clothes,  so  often  spoken  of,  enjoined  by  a  word  denoting  im- 
mersion.' Now  for  the  refutation  of  this,  just  turn  to  Num- 
bers xxxi.  21,  23.  '  This  is  the  ordinance  of  the  law  which 
the  Lord  commanded  Moses.  Every  thing  that  may  abide 
the  fire  ye  shall  make  it  go  through  the  fire,  and  it  shall  be 
clean  ;  nevertheless  it  shall  be  purified  with  the  water  of  sep- 
aration ;  and  all  that  abideth  not  the  fire,  ye  shall  make  go 
through  the  water.''  Now  this  passage  has  been  in  the  Bible 
ever  since  these  writers  were  boys,  and  how  is  it,  that,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  they  never  saw  it?" 

To  his  concluding  question  I  reply,  that,  to  all  intents  and 
purposes,  I  had  seen  and  thoroughly  examined  it,  before  I 
made  the  assertion,  which  he  has  ventured  to  controvert ;  and 
of  my  position  it  contains  no  refutation  at  all : — for, 

1.  It  does  not  contain  the  command  to  wash  the  clothes  to 
which  I  refer  ; — and, 

2.  If  it  did,  it  contains  no  word  denoting  immersion. 

3.  The  command,  to  which  I  did  refer,  occurs  in  the  very 
next  verse,  and  fully  sustains  my  assertion  ;  and  yet  this 
Mr.  Hague  did  not  venture  to  quote. 

1.  The  passage  refers  to  the  purification  of  the  spoils  taken 
from  an  enemy.  It  does  not  relate  to  "  the  washing  of  the 
clothes  so  often  spoken  of."  This  was  the  washing  of  a 
person's  own  clothes.  Moreover,  it  is  not  a  specific  com- 
mand to  wash  clothes  at  all,  but  a  general  command  to  cause 
that  to  pass  through  the  water  which  will  not  stand  the  fire.  If 
he  says  this  includes  clothes,  I  reply,  it  just  as  much  includes 
books  and  parchment,  for  they  will  not  stand  the  fire ;  and 
will  Mr.  Hague  therefore  call  it  a  command  to  wash  books  and 
parchment,  &c.  ? 


MR.  Hague's  review.  115 

The  plain  fact  is,  it  is  not  a  specific  command  to  wash  any- 
thing- by  name  ;  and  yet  I  was  speaking  of  a  specific  com- 
mand to  wash  clothes  by  name,  and  nothing  else.  Again, 
this  command  is  not  one  oft  repeated — it  occurs  nowhere  else. 
The  washing  of  the  clothes  to  which  I  refer,  I  characterized 
as  "  often  spoken  of."  How,  then,  does  this  passage  refute  my 
assertion?  It  does  not  even  touch  it.  Again,  if  it  were  the 
command  to  wash  clothes  to  which  I  refer,  yet  still  it  con- 
tains no  word  denoting  immersion.  Does  the  word  "ISS",  to 
pass,  to  go,  denote  immersion  ?  Does  its  Hiphil  form,  to 
cause  to  pass,  denote  immersion  1  Mr.  Hague  may  reply, 
that  the  phrase  to  cause  to  pass  through  water  denotes  im- 
mersion. Very  well,  so  it  does ;  and  when  I  ever  deny  it, 
then  let  him  quote  this  passage  against  me.  But  I  have  done 
no  such  thing.  I  spoke  of  a  word  in  which  an  oft-repeated 
injunction  is  given,  and  mentioned  the  identical  word,  viz., 
DS^j  and  affirmed  that  it  did  not  denote  immersion.  And 
is  it  a  refutation  of  this,  to  adduce  a  complex  phrase,  implying 
immersion  merely  by  an  adjunct,  but  in  which  the  leading 
verb  does  not  mean  to  immerse  at  all,  but  only  to  pass  1  If  we 
say  that  a  bird  passes  through  the  air,  it  implies  flying,  by  force 
of  an  adjunct ;  does  the  word  to  pass  therefore  mean  to  fly'? 

But  why  did  Mr.  Hague  omit  the  command  to  wash  their 
own  clothes,  which  occurs  in  the  next  verse"?  Here  would 
have  been  a  case  in  point.  It  is  a  specific  command  to  wash 
clothes,  and  not  a  general  command  to  purify  spoils.  It  is  an 
instance  of  the  command  to  which  I  referred  as  oft  repeated, 
and  it  contains  the  word  specified.  And  will  Mr.  Hague 
venture  to  deny  the  truth  of  my  assertion  concerning  it?  Af- 
ter all,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  venturing  is  on  his  side,  not 
on  mine.  He  has  ventured  to  assail  a  plain  truth,  which  no 
man  can  disprove  or  reasonably  deny. 

Of  the  authorities  and  facts  to  which  I  referred,  there  are 
many  besides  those  which  I  have  already  adduced  in  my  arti- 


116  STRICTURES    ON 

cles  on  baptism,  and  which  I  propose  to  employ  in  my  conclud- 
ing article.  But,  at  your  request,  I  will  adduce  at  this  time 
a  few. 

A  passage  in  Clement  of  Alexandria  deserves  particular 
notice,  as  settling-  beyond  dispute  the  position  that  those  to 
whom  the  Greek  was  vernacular  did  regard  fiuTTTt^ce  as  sig- 
nifying to  purify,  irrespetive  of  mode.  It  occurs  Strom,  book  4, 
p.  531 :  Paris,  1641.  Speaking  of  the  true  gnostic,  i.  e.,  one 
who  has  the  true  knowledge  of  God,  he  is  led  to  speak  of 
purity  as  essential  in  order  to  see  God  ;  and  this  leads,  by  a 
natural  transition,  to  the  rites  denoting  purification.  He  then 
remarks,  that  an  idea  of  such  modes  of  purification  may  have 
proceeded  from  Moses  to  the  heathen  poets,  thus — Kui  <f«  »«/ 
«   unav   Tcy   /idi.7r'j(a-fA.u.T0i  ifA  clv   kai  »  ex.  McD-Jcna);   Trag-xS'iS'ifAivii   ton 

TTOlHTUtS  ^i  TCODZ' 

He  here  states,  that  that  may  be  aji  image  or  resemblance  of 
baptism,  which  has  been  handed  down  from  Moses  to  the 
poets.  He  then  illustrates  it  by  two  instances  : — Penelope 
ivashed  herself  and  put  on  clean  apparel,  and  went  to  her  de- 
votions. Telemachus  ivashed  his  hands  in  the  ocean,  and 
prayed  to  Minerva.  He  then  adds,  this  ivas  the  custom  of  the 
Jews,  that  they  should  be  often  baptized  upon  their 
COUCHES.  To  denote  washing.  Homer  uses  C^^cttvai ;  to  denote 
washing  the  hands,  vittto).  Here  I  propose  to  any  intelligent 
and  candid  Greek  scholar  the  following  inquiries  : — 

1.  Is  not  CS'^cttvu  a  generic  word  to  denote  washing  or  puri- 
fication?    Is  ii  not  as  generic  as  xa6«§/(^a)? 

2.  Dare  any  one  say  that  vitttco  denotes  immersion?  Is 
washing  of  the  hands  immersion  1 


MR.  Hague's  review.  117 

3.  In  these  instances  Clement  says  there  is  an  image  or 
resemblance  of  baptism.  Of  purification  there  is  an  image  ; 
but  what  image  or  resemblance  is  there  of  immersion  ? 

4.  Our  credulity  has  been  sorely  taxed  by  the  demand  to 
believe,  that  couches  were  habitually  immersed  by  the  Jews  ; 
yes,  by  all  the  Jews ; — shall  we  go  one  step  farther,  and 
affirm  that  it  was  their  custom  frequently  to  be  immersed  upon 
their  couches  ?  shall  we  belie>^  that  they  had  baptisteries  be- 
low their  couches,  and  an  apparatus  of  ropes  and  pullies,  for 
elevating  and  depressing  men,  couches,  and  all  1  and  that  they 
were  in  the  habit  of  doing  Xhis  frequently  in  the  course  oi  one 
meal  ? 

5.  What  then  does  the  passage  mean?  Plainly,  tliat  they 
reclined  on  their  couches,  and  often  ivashed  their  hands  during 
their  meals.  This  is  a  matter  of  history  and  of  fact.  The 
other  interpretation  is  ridiculous  and  absurd.  Now  the  wash- 
ing of  the  hands  is  a  purification.  The  Psalmist  says,  I 
will  wash  my  hands  in  innocency.  Pilate  desired  to  declare 
his  freedom  from  guilt  by  washing  his  hands  before  the  mul- 
titude. But  the  washing  of  hands  is  no  immersion.  The 
conclusion  is  inevitable  that  /^-xTrTt^a)  here  denotes  to  purify, 
not  to  immerse. 

I  will  now  state  the  general  fact  that  both  the  Latin  and 
Greek  fathers,  under  the  words  ^X7ni<r[x^i  and  ^xTrTio-fxurctj  do 
include  not  only  the  washing  of  the  body  and  hands  in  any 
way,  but  also  the  sprinklings  and  expiations,  not  only  of  the 
Mosaic  ritual,  but  of  the  whole  heathen  world.  Of  this 
in  my  next  article  I  shall  give  ample  proof;  there  is  not  room 
for  it  in  detail  here.  I  will  only  add,  as  to  ^ATrri^o),  a  single 
passage  from  Justin  Martyr,  relating  to  spiritual  purifi- 
cation. 

"  What  is  the  benefit,"  says  he,  '•  of  that  baptism  which 
cleanses  the  flesh  and  the  flesh  alone  ?     BctTma-Quri  mv  -^o^hv 


118  STRICTURES    ON 

Translate  this — be  purified  as  to  your  soul  from  wrath, 
covetousness,  envy,  and  hatred,  and  Lo  your  body  is  pure — 
and  all  see  the  sense  and  feel  its  beauty.  But  who,  that  was 
not  violently  pressed  to  support  a  theory,  would  ever  venture 
to  use  the  barbarous  expression,  be  immersed  as  to  your  soul 
from  wrath,  &c.,  and  Lo  your  body  is  pure  ? 

I  will  add  two  instances  of  the  use  of  ^^.tttui.  In  book  4, 
lines  156,  157,  of  the  Argonautica  of  Apollonius  Rhodius, 
occurs  the  most  remarkable  case  of  immersion  or  dipping  on 
record,  if  it  is  true  that  5*^Ta  always  means  to  dip.  The 
svhject  of  the  immersion  was  the  HUGE  DRAGON  who 
guarded  the  golden  fleece ;  the  immerser,  Medea ;  and  that 
into  which  the  dragon  was  immersed,  a  juniper  branch.  The 
facts  of  the  case  are  these  : — As  Medea  and  Jason  approach, 
the  HUGE  SERPENT  raises  himself  up  in  vast  coils,  rising 
like  volumes  of  smoke  above  volumes  of  smoke  in  some  vast 
conflagration.  Medea  then  sings  her  incantations,  and  relaxes 
his  sinews ;  he  throws  himself  forward  and  extends  himself 
in  huge  folds — with  uplifted  head  seeking  to  devour  them. 
Medea  then  resorts  to  a  soporific  mixture  in  a  cup,  or  goblet, 
and,  in  the  words  of  the  poet, 

H'   cTs  /UIV  agKivQolO   ViOV   TiTfAiOTl  SitXACfl 
B^TTOUf'    iH.   KVKimOi   rtJtWgXT*   (pAgfXCtK,^   O.OlS'AlZ 

That  is,  {if  ^atttu  means  dip,  or  immerse,)  she,  immersing 
him,  with  or  in  a  newly  cut  juniper  bough,  sprinkled  strong 
soporific  poisons  with  songs  upon  his  eyes  ;  and  thus  put  him 
to  sleep.  Here  I  inquire — Did  Medea,  according  to  the  poet, 
take  up  this  HUGE  SERPENT?  This  was  plainly  neces- 
sary to  dip  or  immerse  him.  How  could  she  dip  or  immerse 
him  in  a  cup,  or  in  a  juniper  bough,  or  ivith  it?  If  she  did 
immerse  him,  it  must  have  been  done  by  sprinkling,  for  the 
poet  expressly  asserts  that  she  sprinlded  her  soporific  poi- 
sons on  hira.     Will  our  immersing  brethren  then  admit,  that 


MR.  Hague's  review.  119 

we  can  immerse  by  sprinkling,  from  a  cup,  with  a  branch  ?  If 
so,  then  all  controversy  is  at  an  end  ;  for  we  are  all  willing 
to  immerse  by  sprinkling. 

Now  in  this  case  the  facts  are  undeniable.  The  subject 
was  a  VAST  SERPENT.  Medea  took  a  bough  of  juniper, 
and  sprinkled  him  with  it,  from  a  soporific  mixture,  in  a  cup. 
To  describe  this  operation,  the  poet  uses  ^dut'xu  and  pst/va.  If 
this  is  immersion,  all  will  admit  that  it  is  the  most  remarkable 
case  on  record  ;  and  performed  in  the  most  remarkable  way. 

But  the  Greek  scholiast  sees  no  immersion  here.  His  words 
are — ev  towtc/c  ^0.1  ret?  6c»)5^«5  cpnirt  rwj  MyJuAv  iTriffcitvcvarAv  agntvQm 
to  cpt^/ixamov  KUfAKnti  tcv  SgnKovTA-^  that  is,  in  these  and  tlie  fol- 
lowing words  the  poet  says,  that  Medea,  sprinkling-  the  poi- 
son, with  the  juniper  branch,  put  the  dragon  to  sleep.  And 
the  editor  illustrates  it  by  a  reference  to  the  passage  in  Vir- 
gil, in  which  the  god  of  sleep  shakes  a  bough,  moistened  with 
Lethean  water,  over  the  temples  of  Palinurus,  and  puts  him 
to  sleep. 

The  second  case  is  from  Lucien.  Speaking  of  dying  pur- 
ple, with  the  shell-fish  called  ^cg<f)vg«,  he  says,  d'uvctr^t  yag 
^ATTTtiv  CVK  i<rBii<rQa.i  /uovov  to  thc  TTc^cpv^stc  xgs«f.  That  is,  (if 
0A7rra)  means  to  immerse  or  dip,)  the  Jlesh  of  the  shell-fish  can 
not  only  he  eaten,  but  can  also  dip  or  immerse!!  Dip  or  im- 
merse what?  and  how  can  ^es/i  dip  or  immerse  anything? 
Translate  it  "  can  not  only  be  eaten,  but  also  color  or  dye,'''' 
and  all  is  plain. 

As  to  LEXICONS— I  have  examined  with  care  five  made  by 
writers  of  the  Greek  language,  in  which  their  definitions  are 
in  Greek — ^I  refer  to  Suidas,  Hesychius,  Zonaras,  Phavo- 
rinus,  and  the  Etymologicum  Gudianum,   and   in  none    of 

THEM  IS  THE  SENSE    IMMERSE  GIVEN  EITHER  TO  ^dTTTO)  OR  ^A7r- 

ri^u.     Zonaras  gives  full  definitions  of  the  ecclesiastical  usage 
of  ^dLTTTi^o!,  all  of  which  sustain  the  position  that  it  denotes 
sacrificial  purification,  i.  e.,  the  remission  of  sins;   yea,  he 
11 


120  STRICTURES    ON 

expressly  so  defines  it — a<^iTi;  afx^riuv  ^i  vS'xTOi  Kott  Trnv/AAroi — 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  by  water  and  the  Spirit ;  and  what  is 
this  but  sacrificial  purification,  or  KxBst^Kr/uocI  And  Phavori- 
nus  follows  him  exactly  in  this. 

T  have  now  only  to  ask — what  is  the  highest  authority  on 
this  subject,  the  opinions  of  modern  critics,  or  of  those  who 
spoke  and  wrote  the  Greek  as  their  vernacular  tongue  ? 

Our  immersing  brethren  are  fond  of  claiming  "  all  the  learn- 
ing of  modern  Europe"  as  on  their  side.  I  do  not  admit  the 
truth  of  their  claim.  But  if  I  did,  I  would  only  reply.  Before 
their  tribunal  I  refuse  to  stand.  I  appeal  from  them  to  those 
whose  decision  must  be  final — the  original  writers  of  the 
Greek  tongue. 

And,  as  a  friend,  I  would  advise  our  immersing  brethren  to 
cease  from  using  the  oft-repeated  thunder  of  great  names,  and 
to  appeal  directly  to  the  writings  of  the  Greek  fathers,  and 
other  writers  of  ecclesiastical  Greek.  I,  for  one,  am  perfectly 
willing  to  abide  the  result. 

I  am  yours  affectionately, 

E.  Beecher. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus,  to  whom  Pres.  Beecher  refers,  was 
one  of  the  fathers  of  the  church,  distinguished  for  learning 
and  eloquence.  He  was  born  A.  D.  217.  The  examples 
cited  in  the  above  letter  are  decisive.  We  call  the  attention 
of  Mr.  Hague  to  them  particularly.  Will  he  inform  us,  and 
the  public  generally,  in  what  manner  Medea  immersed  the 
dragon  with  a  juniper  bough?  This  he  must  do,  or  abandon 
his  position.  Here  is  a  clear  case  of  a  baptism  by  sprinkling. 
With  this  example  before  him,  will  Mr.  Hague  presume  to  say 
that  bapto  admits  of  but  one  mode  of  applying  a  liquid?  As 
well  might  he  contend  that  our  English  word  travel  specifies  but 
one  mode  of  going  from  place  to  place  ;  or  that  our  word  wash 
specifies  but  one  mode  of  using  water.  And  let  it  be  distinctly 
understood,  that  to  multiply  instances  where  the  word  denotes 


MR.  Hague's  review.  121 

an  immersion  can  avail  Mr.  Hague  nothing.  What  if  we 
should  give  the  reader  ten  thousand  examples  in  which  our 
word  wash  is  used  of  an  immersion — would  all  this  prove  that 
it  cannot  signify  other  modes  of  using  water  ?  The  examples 
already  adduced,  prove  beyond  all  doubt  that  baptize  has  not 
the  determinate  meaning  of  immerse. 

Examples   from   the   Old   Testament   and   Apocryphal 
Writers. 

Our  citations  from  the  Old  Testament  and  the  apocryphal 
writers  bring  us  to  the  same  conclusion.  See  page  9.  These 
examples  Mr.  Hague  has  passed  over  without  notice.  He 
has  preferred  to  fill  his  space  with  certain  fanciful  illustrations 
and  unsupposable  suppositions.  The  case  of  the  officer  is 
not  worthy  of  a  serious  answer.  No  man  could  ever  suppose 
that  orders  to  sail  to  Nova  Scotia  required  him  to  move 
through  the  air  like  a  bird,  or  a  kite,  or  the  moon.  There  is 
but  one  mode  of  sailing  common  among  men.  Mr.  Hague's 
illustration,  therefore,  is  not  in  point.  We  will  furnish  our 
reader  with  one  more  to  the  purpose.  Suppose  an  individual 
to  receive  orders  to  travel  to  Nova  Scotia.  He  goes  to  his 
books  to  learn  what  to  travel  means,  and  finds  that  to  travel 
signifies  to  walk,  to  ride  on  horseback,  to  sail  in  a  steamboat, 
to  ride  in  a  rail-car,  &c.  What  then?  Is  he  perplexed?  Is 
he  in  doubt  what  to  do  1  By  no  means.  He  sees  that  the 
command  is  of  such  a  nature  that  it  may  be  obeyed  in  divers 
ways.  It  commands  him  to  go  to  the  place  specified,  but  de- 
termines nothing  as  to  the  mode  of  travelling.  An  individual 
is  commanded  to  wash.  Now  because  there  are  divers  ways 
of  washing,  and  no  one  way  is  specified,  is  the  command  unin- 
telligible? Certainly  not.  All  which  he  is  required  to  do,  is 
simply  to  wash,  the  mode  of  washing  not  being  essential  to 
obedience.  And  if  the  word  baptize,  in  its  application  to  the 
Christian  rite,  is  used  in  the  generic  sense  of  cleansing  or 
purifying,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  discovering  what  is  essen- 


122  STRICTURES    ON 

tial  to  a  due  observance  of  it,  although  no  one  mode  of  cleans- 
ing is  specified.  The  very  fact  that  no  one  mode  is  specified, 
only  proves  that  the  essence  of  the  rite  consists  in  the  use  of 
clean  water,  and  not  in  the  mode  of  using  it. 

But  to  test  still  further  Mr.  Hague's  principle  of  holding 
sacred  words  to  one  sense  only,  and  that  the  classic,  let  us 
take  the  word  jr/ty^st.  Its  first  meaning  is  wind — and  then 
others,  such  as  breath,  the  soul,  the  temper  of  the  mind,  and 
the  Spirit  of  God,  all  come,  by  implication  or  analogy,  from 
the  primary  meaning.  If  Mr.  Hague  will  treat  this  word  as 
he  does  baptize,  and  insist  upon  the  primary  classic  significa- 
tion, he  will  give  us  some  ludicrous  specimens  of  philology. 
He  must  then  interpret  the  phrase,  "  he  gave  up  the  ghost," 
he  gave  up  the  wind.  "The  poor  in  spirit"  must  then  be 
foor  in  wind.  "In  spirit  and  in  truth,"  according  to  Mr. 
Hague,  is  in  wind  and  in  truth.  "  Paul  determined  in  his 
mind"  must  read — Paul  determined  in  his  ivind.  "  The  spirit 
of  meekness"  we  must  understand  as  the  wiyid  of  meekness. 
Who  will  tell  us  in  w^hat  particulars  this  fails  of  being  a  fair 
carrying  out  of  Mr.  Hague's  main  principle  of  philology — ^the 
principle  on  which  the  whole  matter  in  dispute  turns  1 

Mr.  Hague  defies  us  to  cope  with  Universalists  on  our  prin- 
ciples, and  goes  on  to  tell  us  what  absurd  things  they  say 
about  the  word  Aiavtov,  as  though  we  were  answerable  for 
their  perversions.  But  has  he  seen  no  successful  arguments 
against  Universalists  by  Pedobaptist  writers  1  And  yet,  let  us 
ask,  did  he  ever  see  one  that  adopted  his  theory  of  one  mean- 
ing and  one  only  ?  We  have  never  heard  Professor  Stuart's 
argument  on  the  meaning  of  aioiv  ever  objected  to  by  Immer- 
sers,  on  the  ground  that  he  classifies  the  different  meanings 
of  the  word.  And  did  Mr.  Hague  ever  try  his  principle 
of  one  meaning  and  one  only,  in  a  discussion  with  Uni- 
versalists ■?  The  very  point  for  which  the  Universalists  con- 
tend respecting  the  word  yuvvi.  (hell)  is  this, — that  it  is  used 
in  its  primary  sense  of  the  Valley  of  Hinnom.     Grant  them 


MR.  Hague's  review.  12'3 

this,  and  their  proof  that  there  is  no  hell,  (so  far  as  this  word 
is  concerned,)  is  complete.  Yes,  and  Mr.  Hague  should 
have  reflected,  that  the  very  word  aim,  (age,)  which  he  se- 
lects, if  interpreted  by  his  principle  of  strictly  adhering  to 
what  is  called  the  primary  meaning,  and  making  that  alone 
the  meaning,  would  be  yielding  the  point  entire  to  Universal- 
ists,  so  far  as  thai  word  is  concerned.  Indeed,  what  he  wishes 
us  to  do  with  baptizo,  is  just  the  thing  which  Universalists  do 
with  every  word  in  dispute  between  them  and  us.  His  refer- 
ence to  Universalists  was,  therefore,  very  unfortunate  for  him. 
But  to  return  from  this  digression  to  the  matters  which  he 
has  passed  over.  We  quoted  examples  of  the  use  of  the  word 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  the  Apocrypha,  in  which  baptize 
is  used  in  a  sense  different  from  that  of  immerse.  These  Mr. 
Hague  has  not  noticed.  We  then  went  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  selected  examples,  in  which  the  word  is  applied  to 
other  things  besides  the  religious  rite.  We  thought  it  more 
important  to  settle  the  Btble  use,  than  the  pagan  use  of  the 
term.  But  to  this  part  of  our  work  he  makes  no  distinct 
reference.  He  does,  in  the  beginning,  say  of  the  baptism  of 
cups  and  couches,  and  of  the  Pharisaic  washing  of  hands,  that 
he  shall  show  that  they  were  immersions.  But  where  he  re- 
deems his  promise,  we  cannot  discover.  In  one  case  he  refers 
us  to  Calmet  for  proof  that  beds  can  be  immersed  :  we  have 
not  found  in  Calmet  any  such  proof,  but  much  of  a  contrary 
nature.  In  connection  with  this  point  he  quotes  a  Jewish  rule 
as  to  ceremonial  bathing,  required  by  the  law,  to  show,  we 
suppose,  that  when  the  Pharisees*  observed  their  uncom- 
manded  custom  of  washing  hands,  they  immersed  themselves 
all  over  ;  and  then  asks  if  a  Jewish  Rabbi  is  not  better  au- 
thority than  a  New  England  clergyman.  Does  he  expect  to 
satisfy  clear  and  honest  minds  by  such  means  1  No  ;  let  it  be 
well  understood,  that  our  examples  to  show  that  the  Bible  use 

*  As  to  the  custom  of  the  Pharisees,  see  Pres.  Beecher's  Lettefj 
page  115. 

11* 


1S4  STRICTURES    ON 

of  the  term,  when  not  applied  to  the  rite,  are  clearly  against 
immersion,  and  that  Mr.  Hague  has  not  made  an  attempt  to 
show  the  contrary,  which  requires  an  answer. 

John's  Baptism. 

Our  remarks  under  this  head,  in  our  first  treatise,  we  wish 
the  reader  to  peruse  again,  in  connection  with  what  Mr.  H. 
has  said  in  reply.  He  sneers  at  our  computation  of  the  num- 
bers baptized  by  John.  The  words  of  the  evangelist  are — 
"And  there  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and 
the  region  round  about  Jordan."  These  terms,  literally  un- 
derstood, imply  that  more  than  a  million  flocked  to  John's 
baptism.  We  put  it  down  at  500,000,  as  the  least  that  could 
have  been  intended.  This,  Mr.  Hague  treats  as  ridiculous. 
We  leave  the  reader  to  judge,  whether  he  has  met  the  point, 
as  a  fair  reasoner,  conscious  of  the  strength  of  his  positions. 
He  also  ridicules  our  translation  of  many  waters  at  Enon. 
As  there  is  no  refuting  a  sneer,  we  will  not  argue  this  point 
with  him.  We  will  rather  quote  a  few  suggestions  from 
Professor  Stuart,  whom  Mr.  Hague  lauds  so  much,  as  one  ot 
'■Hhose  venerable  veterans  in  theology. ' '  Now  this  same  venera- 
ble veteran  in  theology  says  of  this  phrase,  C^xra.  ttoxxo. — "  It 
has  always  seemed  to  me  a  very  singular  mode  of  expression, 
to  designate  the  former  idea,"  i.  e.,  that  the  waters  were 
abundant,  and  deep,  so  as  to  be  convenient  for  immersing. 
"  Why  not  say,  because  the  water  was  deep,  or  abundant, 
simply  ?  A  single  brook,  of  very  small  capacity,  but  still  a 
living  stream,  might,  with  scooping  out  a  small  place  in  the 
sand,  answer  most  abundantly  all  the  purposes  of  baptism,  in 
case  it  were  performed  by  immersion,  and  answer  them  just 
as  well  as  many  waters  could.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  a 
single  brook  would  not  suffice  for  the  accommodation  of  the 
great  multitudes  who  flocked  to  John." 

"  But  let  us  now  see  what  the  idiom  of  the  language  de- 


Mr.    HAGUE  S    REVIEW.  125 

mands.  In  Matt.  iii.  16,  Mark  i.  10,  water  designates  the 
river  Jordan.  In  Acts  viii.  36 — 39,  it  is  left  uncertain  by  the 
text  whether  a  stream  or  fountain  of  water  is  meant.  In 
Rev.  viii.  12,  a  '  third  part  of  the  waters,^  refers  both  to  the 
rivers  and  fountains  of  water,  that  had  just  been  mentioned, 
and  so  of,  of  the  luaters  in  the  same  verse.  In  Rev.  xvii.  1, 
the  angel  says  to  John,  '  I  will  show  thee  the  punishment  of 
the  great  harlot,  who  sitteth  on  many  waters,  i.  e.,  many 
streams  or  rivers  of  water.  In  xvii.  15,  the  same  phrase  and 
idea  is  repeated.  In  Rev.  xxii.  1,  we  find  the  expression,  river 
of  water  of  life,  which  in  Rev.  xxii.  17  is  referred  to,  and  called 
the  water  of  life.  In  Rev.  i.  15,  xiv.  2,  xix.  0,  we  have  the 
expression,  voice  of  many  waters,  which  in  two  of  the  pas- 
sages is  followed  by  the  expression,  as  the  voice  of  thunder. 
Now  it  is  the  waves  of  the  sea,  probably,  to  which  the  writer 
here  alludes.  But  these  waves  of  the  sea  are  successive,  and, 
so  to  speak,  different,  and  broken  masses  of  water ;  not  one 
continuous  mass,  deep  and  abundant.  The  simple  idea  of 
depth  and  abundance  would  not  give  birth  to  the  conception 
of  many  waters.  It  is  the  movement,  the  division,  the  succes- 
sion, and  the  motion,  which  form  the  ground  of  this  idea," 

"Of  the  evangelists,  only  Matthew  and  Mark  use  iSae^  in 
the  plural.  Matthew  employs  it  four  times,  viz.,  xiv.  28, 
29,  viii.  32,  vii.  15.  In  the  three  former  instances  it  desig- 
nates the  waters,  as  we  say  in  the  lake  of  Tiberias.  In  the 
latter  it  probably  means  different  or  various  streams  or  foun^ 
tains  of  water.  In  this  last  sense,  Mark  employs  it  in  the 
only  example  in  which  the  plural  is  used  in  his  gospel,  ix.  22. 
No  other  example  of  the  plural  occurs,  till  we  come  to  the 
Apocalypse.  Here,  as  we  have  seen,  the  waters  or  waves  of 
the  ocean  are  designated,  in  three  instances,  and  in  nine  in- 
stances,  fountains  and.  streams  of  water  are  designated.  No 
example  then  can  be  brought  in  the  New  Testament  of  the 
application  of  vS^ra.  to  designate  merely  quantity  of  water, 
simply  considered  as  deep  and  abounding^," 


126  STRICTURES    ON 

Thus  our  own  remarks  on  this  subject  are  more  than  sus- 
tained. If  the  reader  will  read  them  again,  and  compare  them 
with  Mr.  H.'s  suggestions,  he  cannot  fail  to  see  where  the 
truth  of  this  matter  lies. 

Baptism  of  Christ. 

Under  this  head,  Mr.  H.  has  said  little  that  would  be  cal- 
culated to  detract  from  the  force  of  our  remarks.  The  pas- 
sage of  scripture  on  which  he  relies  to  *'  sweep  all  away,^^  is 
this — "It  is  evident  that  our  Lord  sprang  out  of  Judah,  of 
which  tribe  Moses  spoke  nothing  concerning  priesthood." 
*'  Here,"  continues  Mr.  Hague,  "  the  apostle  asserts,  that  no 
statute  of  the  Mosaic  law  touched  the  priesthood  of  Christ, 
who  pertaineth  to  another  tribe,  of  which  no  man  gave  atten- 
dance at  the  altar."  Is  it  a  fact,  or  do  our  eyes  deceive  us? 
Has  Mr.  H.  thus  penned  a  denial  of  the  priesthood  of  Christ, 
in  thus  perverting  the  text  of  Paul  1  We  have,  for  some 
time,  noticed  a  growing  disposition  among  Immersers  to  quote, 
as  of  special  weight  in  this  controversy,  the  opinions  of  Ger- 
Bjan  writers,  who,  in  order  to  expunge  the  doctrine  of  the 
atonement  from  the  gospel,  seek  to  exclude  from  the  rite  of 
baptism  the  symbolical  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  atonement. 
But  we  were  not  prepared  to  expect  that  Mr.  Hague  would 
deny  the  priesthood  of  Christ,  in  order  to  make  out  that  he 
was  immersed.  This  seems  too  great  a  sacrifice  to  carry  so 
small  a  point. 

But  charity  would  hope  that  he  does  not  mean  so  much, 
though  he  says  it.  Suppose  he  means  only  to  say,  that  as 
Christ  was  a  priest,  not  after  the  order  of  Aaron,  but  after 
that  of  Melchizedek,  he  required  no  ceremony  of  induction  to 
office,  i.  e.,  no  public  introduction  and  manifestation  to  the 
people,  in  his  official  character.  Then  the  express  words  of 
John  should  settle  the  question,  who  tells  us  that  the  great 
purpose  of  his  own  ministry  was  to  usher  in  that  of  Christ, 
and  manifest  him  to  Israel  in  his  official  character  :  "  I  knew 


MR.  Hague's  review.  1ST 

him  not,  lut  that  he  should  he  made  manifest  to  Israel,  there' 
fore  I  am  come  baptizing  with  water. ^^ 

Mr.  H.  intimates  that  the  ceremony  of  Christ's  baptism  did 
not  correspond  with  that  of  the  induction  of  priests.  But  we 
ask  what  material  circumstance  was  wanting]  There  was 
certainly  the  washing  with  water  ;  and  as  to  the  clothing  with 
priestly  robes  and  anointing  with  oil,  the  two  other  parts  of 
the  ceremony — the  voice  from  heaven  speaking  to  the  ear 
what  the  ceremonial  investiture  by  robes  spoke  to  the  eye — 
and  the  visible  pouring  upon  him  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  actually 
accomplishing  what  all  typical  unctions  had  prefigured — 
these  were  even  more  than  answering  the  demands  of  the 
ritual  law.  As  all  the  Jewish  ritual  was  typical  of  Christ, 
what  fact  or  circumstance  relating  to  him  could  have  been 
typified  by  the  typical  priest's  induction  to  ofiice,  if  not 
Christ's  own  induction  to  office  ■?  And  as  the  type  of  the  pass- 
over  terminated  in  the  real  offering  of  the  sacrificial  Lamb  ; 
was  it  not  fitting,  that  the  type  of  priestly  ordination  should 
terminate  in  the  real  ordination  of  the  real  Priest,  over  the 
house  of  God  1  This  truth  stands  out  with  the  clearness  of  a 
sunbeam,  by  the  collected  light  of  both  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  New. 

Baptism  of  the  Three  Thousand. 

Mr.  H.  thinks  there  was  water  in  Jerusalem  convenient  for 
immersing  three  thousand  in  a  fraction  of  a  day,  because  there 
was  enough  to  stand  a  siege.  But  water  in  wells  might  an- 
swer all  the  purposes  of  standing  a  siege,  and  yet  not  be  very 
convenient  for  immersing.  He  tells  us  that  Chrysostom  im- 
mersed three  thousand  in  one  day.  But  as  he  gives  no 
authority  for  so  incredible  a  fact,  and  as  we  have  found  so 
many  of  his  other  statements  worse  than  apocryphal,  and  as 
the  thing  in  itself  is  impossible,  we  must  be  excused  for  say- 
ing that  we  do  not  believe  it. 


1|38  STRICTURES    ON 

Baptism  of  the  Ethiopian. 

His  suggestion  as  to  the  phrase,  in  Isaiah  Hi.  15, — 
"sprinkle  many  nations,"  would  probably  not  have  been 
made,  if  the  note  which  appeared  in  our  second  edition  had 
been  before  him  when  he  wrote.  Since  publishing  that  note, 
we  have  had  the  curiosity  to  consult  all  the  Hebrew  lexicons 
that  have  fallen  in  our  way,  and  we  find  that  only  one  out  of 
the  whole  gives  the  least  countenance  to  the  rendering  of  the 
Seventy,  Mr.  H.  says  "  Gesenius  sanctions  it,  and  throws 
light  on  its  origin."  But  how  and  why  does  he  sanction  it  1 
The  only  sanction  which  he  gives  it,  and  the  only  light  which 
he  throws  on  its  origin,  is  just  to  say,  that  the  Seventy  in  that 
passage  so  render  it.  And  for  thai  reason  he  numbers  the 
sense  of  astonish  among  its  meanings — thus,  "  To  cause  to  leap 
for  joy  or  admiration.  So,  perhaps,  Isa. — So  shall  he  cause 
many  nations  to  wonder  at  him. — Sept." — And  why  does  he 
give  it  even  this  equivocal  sanction  1  Because  he  wishes  to  ex- 
clude from  the  Bible,  as  far  as  he  can,  the  idea  of  Christ's 
sprinkling  the  nations  with  his  blood.  Hence  he  sanctions  the 
error  of  the  Seventy,  so  far  as  he  can  without  risking  his  own 
credit  as  a  scholar,  and  no  farther.  Mr.  H.  should  be  a  little 
more  cautious  of  following  in  the  wake  of  German  neologists. 
But  we  see  from  the  late  forth-puttings  of  Newton  Seminary, 
that  the  malaria  from  Germany  is  to  spread  its  visitations 
upon  the  immersing  denomination,  and  we  fear  to  a  greater 
extent  than  it  has  done  with  us  ;  from  the  fact  that  neologists 
find  declaring  for  immersion  to  be  a  convenient  way  of  cvad 
ing  evangelical  doctrines,  and  because,  from  their  countenanc- 
ing immersion,  their  writings  are,  in  what  Iramersers  regard 
a  main  point,  peculiarly  acceptable.  But  we  hope  that,  in 
all  their  immersings,  they  will  not  be  completely  immersed  in 
neology.     A  sprinkling  of  it  has  been  quite  enough  for  us. 

But  to  return  to  the  subject  of  Hebrew  lexicons  on  Isa. 
lii.     We  have  consulted  Castellus'  Ileptaglott  Lexicon  ;  also 


MR.  Hague's   review.  129 

the  Pentaglott,  and  Robertson's  and  Pagninus'  and  Buxtorfs  , 
and  none  of  them  give  snch  a  meaning  as  that  of  astonish  to 
the  word.  The  Pentaglott  gives  the  meaning  of  sprinkle  to 
the  word  in  that  passage.  It  gives  also  the  meaning  of  the 
word  in  the  Targums,  and  the  cognate  words  in  Chaldee  and 
Arabic.  So  utterly  groundless  is  the  conceit,  that  that  word, 
in  every  other  place  rendered  properly,  should  here  mean  to 
astonish.  Mr.  Hague's  suggestion  that  the  eunuch  read  from 
the  Seventy,  we  have  already  refuted.  If  he  did  read  from 
that  copy,  he  had  an  inspired  teacher,  who  could  give  him  the 
true  meaning.  It  is  really  of  no  consequence,  therefore, 
whether  he  read  from  the  Seventy  or  not. 

In  confirmation  of  what  we  said  respecting  the  absence  of 
such  water  as  was  suitable  for  the  immersion  of  the  eunuch, 
let  us  bring  the  testimony  of  Eusebius.  Treating  of  Hebrew 
topography,  under  the  word  Bedsour,  he  says — "  There  was 
a  spring  in  the  village  of  Bethsoron,  twenty  miles  distant 
from  Jerusalem,  flowing  from  a  mountain,  in  which  the  Ethi- 
opian was  baptized."  This  testimony  is  specially  important, 
as  it  was  written  at  an  early  period,  when  the  truth  in  the 
case  must  have  been  known.  Pococke  testifies  that  the  spring 
was  to  be  seen  in  his  day,  i.  e.  two  hundred  j^ears  ago.  Thus 
vanishes  the  last  semblance  of  proof  that  the  eunuch  was 
immersed. 

The  Lord's  Supper  and  Baptism. 

In  attempting  to  discredit  our  principles  of  philology,  Mr. 
Hague  says  that  any  one  would  be  justified  on  the  ground  of 
them  to  drop  the  sacramental  wine  on  his  hand,  and  absorb  it 
through  his  skin,  and  contend  that  in  so  doing  he  obeyed  the 
command  of  our  Lord — "  Drink  ye  all  of  it."  We  should  be 
very  sorry  to  encourage  such  an  evasion  of  a  plain  precept. 
But  Mr.  Hague's  illustration  fails  for  want  of  relevancy 
There  is  but  one  mode  of  drinking  common  among  men.  Men 
never  drink  through  the  skin  of  the  hand.  The  command  to 
drink,  therefore,  is  a  specific  command,  to  receive  the  liquid 


130  STRICTURES     ON 

into  the  mouth  and  swallow  it.  Men  drink  in  no  other  way. 
There  are,  however,  divers  modes  oi  baptizing .  The  dragon 
was  not  baptized  in  the  same  w^ay  with  the  ship  to  which  Mr. 
Hague  alludes ;  nor  was  the  baptism  practised  by  the  Jews, 
while  lying  on  their  couches,  like  that  administered  to  the  naked 
candidates  of  the  ancient  church.  According  to  customary 
usage,  the  word  drink  limits  a  man  to  one  mode  of  receiving 
a  liquid,  that  is,  he  must  receive  it  through  the  mouth ;  the 
woxA  baptize,  on  the  other  hand,  admits  of  several  ways  of 
applying  a  liquid.  Hence  Mr.  Hague's  illustration  is  totally 
irrelevant.  As  he  has  alluded  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  however, 
we  will  take  the  opportunity  to  test  his  principles.  Suppose 
we  should  do  the  same  with  the  word  supper  that  he  does 
with  the  word  baptism.  Then  because  deipnon  (supper)  pri- 
marily denotes  a  full  meal,  taken  about  the  middle  of  the 
afternoon,  and  usually  accompanied  with  excess  and  revel- 
lings,  we  must  understand  (according  to  Mr.  Hague's  princi- 
ples) the  command  to  observe  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  enjoin- 
ing upon  us  the  duty  of  doing  just  what  the  Greeks  w^ere 
accustomed  to  do  at  the  meal  designated  by  this  word.  This 
was  an  error  into  which  the  Corinthian  Greeks  fell,  and  for 
which  Paul  sharply  reproved  them.  See  1  Cor.  xi.  When 
words  are  taken  from  a  Common  use  and  applied  to  a  sacred 
rite,  they  must  have  a  shade  of  meaning  somewhat  different 
from  their  ordinary  signification.  See  page  10.  Those,  how- 
ever, who  insist  on  plunging  because  they  think  the  original 
word  classically  signifies  to  plunge,  should,  for  a  like  reason, 
insist  upon  eating  a  full  meal  at  the  Lord's  table.  Our  im- 
mersing brethren  have  only  to  treat  deipnon  as  they  treat 
baptize,  and  the  Lord's  table  would  immediately  present  a 
novel  and  disgusting  scene. 

The   Opinions  and   Practice   of  the    Earlier  Ages   of 
THE  Church. 

Our  limits  will  admit  of  only  a  few  remarks  under  this 
head  ;  and  yet  these  few  may  throw  back  some  light  upon  the 


MR.  Hague's  review.  131 

question  discussed  in  the  preceding  pages.  Let  it  be  under- 
stood that  we  distinguish  between  the  apostolic  and  the  prim- 
itive church.  That  immersion  was  not  practised  by  the  apos- 
tles, we  have  clearly  shown,  so  far  as  a  demonstration  of  the 
absence  of  all  evidence  can  prove  a  negative  proposition.  In 
the  ages  succeeding  them,  it  was  no  doubt  the  general  mode 
of  baptism.  But  it  was  never  practised  exclusively. 
During  a  period  of  many  centuries,  sprinkling  was  held  to  be 
valid  baptism  by  the  great  body  of  Christians  ;  and  evidences 
of  its  practice  are  to  be  found  in  the  testimony  of  the  most 
distinguished  men,  reaching  back  to  the  earliest  historical 
ages  of  the  church.  Let  the  reader  consult  Erasmus,  Zan- 
chius,  Calvin,  Martin  Bucer,  Thomas  Aquinas,  Gratian,  Ber- 
nard, and  the  writers  generally  of  the  sixteenth,  fifteenth, 
fourteenth,  thirteenth,  twelfth  and  eleventh  centuries,  and  he 
will  find  ample  testimony  to  this  fact.  Walfriedus  Strabo 
A.  D.  850 — the  venerable  Bede,  A.  D.  670 — Aurelius  Pru- 
dentius,  A.  D.  390 — severally  speak  of  sprinkling  as  valid 
baptism.  Prudentius  represents  John  as  baptizing  by  pouring. 
In  the  year  337,  Constantine  the  Great  was  baptized  by  sprink 
ling.  The  fathers  of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  Eusebius,  Athanasius,  Basil,  Lactantius,  beai 
witness  in  various  ways  to  the  practice  and  validity  of  sprink- 
ling. Cyprian  was  constituted  bishop  of  Carthage  in  248 
This  distinguished  bishop  could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  the 
opinions  and  practice  of  the  church  at  that  early  periods 
Speaking  of  some  who  were  baptized  by  sprinkling,  he  quotes 
the  prophet  Ezekiel,  (Ez.  xxxvi.  25,)  "  I  will  sprinkle  clean 
water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean;"  and  then  adds — 
^^ Hence  it  appears  that  sprMling  is  of  equal  validity  with  the 
salutary  hath.'' ^ — Op.,  Lib.  2,  Epis.  7.  Is  not  the  authority 
of  Cyprian  of  more  weight  in  this  controversy  than  that  of  a 
' '  New  England  clergyman  ? ' '  Origen  and  Tertullian  both  lived 
within  one  hundred  years  of  the  apostles  ;  and  they  unitedly 
testify  to  the  practice  and  validity  of  baptism  by  affusion  or 


132  STRICTURES     ON 

sprinkling.  The  same  may  be  said  of  Clemens  Alex- 
andrinus  and  Irenaeus,  the  first  of  whom  lived  within  fifty 
years  of  the  apostles,  and  the  last  of  whom  was  born  about  the 
time  the  beloved  John  fell  asleep.     Such  are  the  facts.     It 

WAS  NOT  UNTIL  AFTER  THE  REFORMATION,  IN  THE  SIXTEENTH 
CENTURY,  THAT  ANY  SECT  OF  CHRISTIANS  CONSIDERED  IM- 
MERSION AS  ESSENTIAL  TO   BAPTISM. 

The  question  now  very  naturally  occurs.  What  was  the 
occasion  of  the  beginning-  and  prevalence  of  immersion  1  The 
modern  advocates  for  exclusive  immersion  take  it  for  granted 
that  the  early  Christians  practised  this  mode  because  they  believed 
the  original  loord  rendered  it  imperatively  necessary.  But  this 
position  is  wholly  untenable.  There  are  many  considerations, 
which  conclusively  prove  that  the  practice  in  question  origi- 
nated in  no  such  belief. 

1.  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  such  a  belief,  to  account 
for  the  prevalence  of  the  practice. 

2.  The  word  has  no  such  restricted  meaning,  but  is  used 
of  divers  modes  of  applying  a  liquid,  as  has  been  clearly 
proved.  The  English  scholar  would  as  soon  limit  our  word 
go  to  some  one  mode  of  travelling,  as  the  ancient  fathers  limit 
baptize  to  one  mode  of  using  water. 

3.  Every  fact  which  proves  that  the  fathers  did  not  consider 
immersion  essential,  proves  also  that  they  did  not  understand 
the  ivord  as  7'equiring  immersion.  If  they  had  understood 
Christ  as  saying,  in  so  many  words,  "  go  and  immerse,"  they 
must  have  insisted  on  that  one  mode  as  essential.  But  they 
never  considered  it  as  essential. 

4.  That  the  early  fathers  did  not  consider  the  word  as  a 
synonyme  of  immersion,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  they 
speak  of  sprinkling  as  baptism.  Mr.  Hague  could  not  speak 
of  sprinkling  as  baptism.  He  believes  that  baptism  is  pre- 
cisely equivalent  to  our  English  word  immersion.  For  Mr. 
Hague,  therefore,  to  call  sprinkling  baptism,  would  be  as  ab- 
surd as  to  call  sprinkling  immersion.     But  the  fathers  could 


MR.  Hague's  review.  133 

speak  of  sprinkling-  as  baptism  ;  and  they  felt  not  Mr.  Hague's 
difficulty,  for  the  plain  reason,  that  their  views  of  the  import 
of  the  word  were  radically  different  from  his. 

5.  The  fathers  never  base  an  argument  for  immersion  on 
the  import  of  the  word.  This  is  a  very  remarkable  fact.  The 
modern  advocates  of  exclusive  immersion  rest  their  argument 
almost  entirely  upon  the  word.  The  word  is  immerse,  they 
say,  and  therefore  we  must  immerse.  But  there  is  nothing 
like  this  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  the  ancient  fathers. 
Why  did  they  not  take  the  same  position  with  modern  Im- 
mersers  ?  Because  they  held  altogether  different  views.  Why 
did  they  not  defend  immersion  on  philological  grounds?  Be- 
cause they  knew  that  on  such  grounds  it  could  not  be  de- 
fended. 

6.  The  fathers  and  early  Christians  used  the  word  in  a 
sense  as  indeterminate  as  our  word  wash,  and  in  instances 
where  there  could  have  been  no  immersion.  They  speak  of 
the  shedding  of  blood  as  baptism — of  the  baptism  of  tears — 
of  baptism  by  martyrdom,  Szc. 

7.  The  fathers  expressly  state  that  the  power  of  baptism 
does  not  depend  on  the  quantity  of  water  used. 

8.  It  is  abundantly  evident  from  their  writings,  that  they 
understood  baptize,  in  its  application  to  the  Christian  rite,  in 
some  generic  sense,  which  left  the  mode  of  using  the  water 
undefined. 

9.  They  themselves  practised  immersion,  sprinkling,  and 
affusion. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  take  it  for 
granted  that  the  fathers  immersed,  because  they  believed  that 
^ATTTi^cD  means  only  to  immerse.  Indeed,  it  is  quite  clear  that 
they  were  not  led  to  adopt  this  form  of  baptism  by  any  such 
belief.  If  such  an  understanding  of  the  word  had  been  the 
source  of  their  practice,  their  practice  would  have  been  always 
uniform.  They  never  could  have  used  the  word  to  denote 
divers  modes  of  applying  a  liquid.     With  them  it  must  then 


134  STRICTURES    ON 

have  carried  invariably  the  sense  of  immersion.  They  never 
could  have  called  sprinkling  baptism,  if  they  had  considered 
that  word  a  synonyme  of  immersion.  Since,  therefore,  their 
practice  was  not  uniform  ;  since  they  were  accustomed  to 
employ  ^ATrn^co  in  cases  where  the  idea  of  immersion  was  not 
involved  ;  since  they  called  sprinkling  baptism,  and  acknow- 
ledged its  validity, — we  are  under  the  necessity  of  looking  to 
something  distinct  from  the  word  as  the  source  of  their  prac- 
tice. That  they  held  no  sentiments  respecting  this  word  in 
common  with  the  modern  advocates  of  exclusive  immersion,  is 
absolutely  certain.  How,  then,  shall  we  account  for  the  in- 
troduction and  prevalence  of  this  form  of  baptism  in  the  early 
ages  of  the  church?  There  are  three  causes  assigned  by 
Pres.  Beecher,  which  are  amply  sufficient  to  solve  the  mys- 
tery.    1.  Oriental  usages,  and  the  habits  of  warmer  regions. 

2.  A  false  interpretation  of  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.   12. 

3.  A  very  early  habit  of  ascribing  peculiar  virtue  to  external 
forms.     See  Bib.  R.,  A^ol.  V.,  Jan.  1841. 

We  showed  in  our  former  treatise,  that  in  those  scripture 
baptisms  which  took  place  near  a  stream,  the  parties  stepped 
into  the  stream /or  affusion.  Now  a  people  accustomed  to  bath- 
ing, and  in  those  warm  climates  where  Christianity  first  began 
to  plant  her  churches  and  administer  her  ordinances,  would 
very  easily  slide  into  the  practice  of  immersion,  especially  if 
there  existed  in  their  minds  any  predisposing  causes.  And 
such  causes  did  exist  in  the  strong  tendencies  towards  supersti- 
tion which  characterized  the  primitive  Christians.  While  the 
church  was  yet  in  its  infancy,  and  after  it  had  lost  the  guid- 
ance of  inspired  teachers,  it  was  liable  to  fall  into  many  errors. 
Its  members  were  but  babes  in  Christian  knowledge.  If 
the  churches,  which  have  been  gathered  from  the  most  refined 
of  the  modern  pagan  nations,  should  be  deprived  of  the  guid- 
ing and  moulding  influence  of  the  missionary,  how  long  would 
they  continue  to  hold  the  truth  in  its  purity  1  There  is,  with 
many,  a  habit  of  regarding  the  primitive  Christians,  in  the  age 


MR.    HAGUE'S    REVIEW. 


13^ 


immediately  succeeding  the  apostolic,  as  perfect  models  of 
excellence,  and  infallible  expounders  of  the  gospel.  But  we 
might  with  almost  equal  reason  expect  to  find  Christianity  in 
her  loveliest  form  among  the  converted  savages  of  the  Sand- 
wich Islands.  The  church  in  that  age  was  made  up  of  per- 
sons gathered  out  from  under  the  pompous  superstitions  of 
heathenism,  and  exposed  to  a  thousand  influences  still  bearing 
them  towards  superstition.  Even  in  the  very  days  of  the 
apostles,  Paul  had  more  than  he  could  do  to  resist  this  ten- 
dency to  superstition  which  thus  early  developed  itself  in  the 
converts.  Now  it  ivas  chiefly  this  disposition,  which  originated 
and  fostered  the  practice  of  immersion.  INIinds  so  inclined 
would  not  be  likely  to  be  satisfied  with  the  plain  simplicity  of 
the  Christian  rites  as  our  Lord  left  them,  but  would  naturally 
seek  to  make  them  more  impressive.  And  it  is  a  fact  incon- 
trovertibly  established,  THAT  ON  NO  SUBJECT  DID 
SUPERSTITION  SO  LUXURIATE,  AS  UPON  BAP- 
TISM. With  immersion  came  in  accompanying  supersti- 
tions, as  immersing  three  times,  the  use  of  consecrated  water, 
anointing  with  oil,  signing  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  exor- 
cism, eating  milk  and  honey,  putting  on  of  white  garments, 
anointing  the  eyes  and  ears,  and  the  stripping  of  men  and  wo- 
men perfectly  naJced,  to  denote  their  moral  nakedness  before  the 
putting  on  of  Christ.  Now  these  were  parts  of  the  immer- 
sion of  the  early  church.  The  same  men  who  practised  im- 
mersion, practised  these  fooleries.  They  all  come  down  to 
us  as  one  parcel.  They  can  all  boast  a  date  equally  ancient 
And  those  authors  that  claim  for  immersion  an  apostolic  ori- 
gin, claim  the  same  for  its  accompaniments.  Take  as  a  speci- 
men Romanus'  book  on  "Ancient  Rites,"  published  at 
Frankfort,  A.  D.  1681.  He  contends  that  the  use  of  the 
consecrated  water  was  handed  down  from  the  apostles,  as  was 
also  the  custom  of  touching  the  nose  and  ears,  and  that  of 
exorcism,  &c.  He  farther  very  gravely  informs  us  that  fe- 
males stripped  themselves  for  baptism,  and  came  out  of  the 
12* 


136  STRICTURES    ON 

water  in  a  state  of  nudity  ;  and  that  they  were  not  permitted 
to  consult  the  timidity  and  modesty  of  their  sex.  The  reason 
on  which  this  practice  was  grounded  was  tliis — "that  Christ 
suffered  naked,  and  that  females  as  well  as  others  must  imi- 
tate Christ ;"  just  as  it  is  now  pretended  that  we  must  be  im- 
mersed because  (as  it  is  falsely  alleged)  Christ  was  immersed. 
Romanus  quotes  Cyril  as  exclaiming — "  O  admirable  specta- 
cle  !  Ye  were  naked  in  the  sight  of  all,  and  were  not  ashamed. 
So  you  imitate  Adam,  who  was  naked  in  Paradise,  and  was 
not  ashamed.  Yea,  you  imitate  him  who  was  naked  on  the 
cross,  even  Christ."  Now  is  it  to  be  believed  that  our  Lord 
ever  instituted  this  mode  of  baptism?  Could  his  apostles 
have  sanctioned  such  superstitious  usages  ?  And  yet  we  see 
them  flourishing  in  the  early  church,  as  accompaniments  of 
immersion,  and  coevals  with  it. 

The  fact  that  immersion  came  into  the  church  in  such  com- 
pany, is  conclusive  proof  that  it  was  the  offspring  of  those 
superstitious  propensities,  to  which  even  such  men  as  Tertul- 
lian  and  Cyprian  were  in  bondage. 

The  Greek  and  Latin  fathers  are  confessedly  not  safe  guides 
as  scriptural  annotators  ;  and  their  practice  is  not  to  be  received 
as  the  criterion  of  truth.  Nevertheless,  it  is  freely  admitted 
that  they  must  have  understood  the  usual  import  of  /Sct-zzTT/^a,  a 
term  familiar  to  them  as  our  household  words.  But  why  did 
they  not  base  the  propriety  of  immersion  on  the  meaning  of 
this  word?  This  is  the  whole  of  Mr.  Hague's  argument. 
But  this  they  never  essayed  to  do.  The  fathers  well  knew 
that  the  word  could  not  be  restricted  in  its  signification  to  one 
mode  of  using  water.  They  knew  that  it  was  frequently  em- 
ployed to  denote  an  effect,  such  as  cleansing  or  purifying, 
without  reference  to  mode.  With  their  perfect  know- 
ledge of  the  force  of  the  word,  they  could  not  take  the  ground 
assumed  by  Mr.  Hague.  If  they  preferred  immersion,  it  was 
for  reasons  which  led  them  to  practise  trine  immersion,  the 
anointing  with  oil,  &c.     The  great  idea,  however,  which  they 


MR.  Hague's  review.  ISt 

attached  to  the  word,  was  'purification.  In  all  tiieir  wri- 
tings, THEY  INVARIABLY  USE  IT  AS    SYNONYMOUS  WITH  xatfl*- 

g«fa,  TO  PURIFY,  This  generic  sense  defines  no  one  particu-« 
lar  mode  of  using  the  water.  As  religious  purifying  might 
be  done  by  immersion,  with  their  superstitious  tendencies  they 
would  naturally  show  a  partiality  for  that  mode  ;  and  as  it 
could  also  be  done  by  affusion  or  sprinkling,  they  could  con-^ 
sistently  allow  the  validity  of  other  modes.  Believing  that 
0ctrr'ri^a},  as  a  religious  term,  was  employed  in  the  generic 
sense  of  to  purify,  the  fathers  very  properly  inferred  that 
that  which  was  essential  to  the  Christian  rite  was  the  use  of 
clean  water,  and  not  the  mode  of  its  use. 

If  the  reader  wishes  to  see  this  point  ably  discussed,  we 
refer  him  to  the  articles  in  the  Biblical  Repository,  on  the 
import  of  Baptizo,  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Edward  Beecher. 
Dr.  Beecher  proves  most  triumphantly,  not  only  that  the 
Greek  and  Latin  fathers  understood  baptizo  in  the  generic 
sense  of  to  purify,  but  that  this  is  its  meaning  as  a  religious 
term.  These  articles  have  been  before  the  public  for  nearly 
two  years.  The  advocates  of  exclusive  immersion  have  not 
been  ignorant  of  their  publication.  Mr.  Hague  betrays  his 
knowledge  of  their  existence  by  his  wayside  thrust  at  Pres, 
Beecher.  Mr.  Cushman  alludes  to  them  very  prettily  under 
the  image  of  a  new  star  rising  in  the  West.  But  why  has 
no  one  this  side  of  the  Atlantic  attempted  a  reply  to  them  1 
They  are  unanswerable. 

And  here  we  cannot  forbear  to  ask — Is  it  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose, that  our  Lord  intended  that  the  mode  of  using  the  water 
should  be  considered  the  essential  part  of  the  baptismal  rite  ? 
The  true  spiritual  baptism  is  purification.  The  external  rite 
is  designed  only  as  the  shadow  of  this  reality.  Is  not  the  use 
of  clean  water  all  that  is  needed  to  symbolize  this  effect  1  But 
if  Christ  intended  to  lay  the  stress  on  the  mode  of  using  the 
water,  why  did  he  not  select  a  word  of  the  most  specific  sig^ 


138  STRICTURES    ON 

nification?  If  a  servant  had  received  a  command  to  go  to 
New  York,  and  some  of  his  friends  should  insist  that  he  ought 
to  walk,  and  that  walking  vv^as  essential  to  obedience,  it  would 
be  very  natural  for  him  to  ask,  "  Why  did  not  my  master  bid 
me  walk,  if  he  designed  to  confine  me  to  this  particular  mode 
of  going?''''  Or,  if  he  had  received  an  injunction  to  wash 
himself,  and  some  one  should  tell  him  that  he  must  bathe  him- 
self, and  that  this  mode  of  washing  is  essential  to  obedience, 
he  might  very  properly  inquire,  "  Why  then  did  not  my  mas- 
ter use  a  word  of  more  definite  signification'?  If  he  intended 
to  make  some  particular  mode  of  washing  essential,  why  did 
he  not  specify  that  mode  1 ' '  From  the  fact  that  his  master  had 
employed  a  word  denoting  simply  an  effect  without  reference 
to  mode,  that  servant  might  justly  conclude  that  he  designed 
to  lay  no  stress  upon  any  one  particular  mode  of  washing.  The 
application  of  these  remarks  to  the  subject  under  discussion  is 
easy.  Our  Lord  anight  have  used  words  of  more  definite 
signification.  The  word  dupto  denotes  specifically  to  dip  or 
dive  under.  If  he  intended  to  make  immersion  essential  to  a 
right  performance  of  the  Christian  rite,  why  did  he  not  employ 
this  word?  The  Greek  word  rantizo  denotes  specifically 
sprinkling — the  word  ekcheo  denotes  specifically  pouring. 
Now  if  Christ  intended  to  give  essential  importance  to  any 
one  particular  mode  of  using  water,  why  did  he  not  make 
choice  of  one  of  those  words,  which  so  clearly  define  modes? 
The  fact  that  he  employed  a  word  which  is  capable  of  denot- 
Vig"  effects  without  reference  to  mode,  as  washing,  cleansing, 
purifying,  &c.,  is  conclusive  proof  that  he  never  designed, 
that  any  one  particular  mode  of  using  water  should  be  consid- 
ered essential  to  the  validity  of  the  rite. 

But,  furthermore,  what  supposable  analogy  could  have  led 
our  Lord  to  fix  upon  immersio7i  ?  Of  the  three  modes  of  using 
the  symbolic  water,  it  is  certainly  the  least  appropriate.  In- 
deed, to  employ  it  in  representing  the  effects  of  the  Holy 
Spirit's  operations  upon  the  human  soul,  seems  to  be  a  mon- 


MR.  Hague's  review.  I3d 

strous  perversion  of  language.  Those  effects  are  purity,  joy, 
peace,  &c.  Now  it  is  very  common  to  speak  of  being  zm- 
mersed  in  care  and  trouble,  of  being  immersed  in  debt,  of 
being  immersed  in  sloth,  &c.  The  term  is  frequently  used  to 
denote  something  disagreeable  and  oppressive.  But  who  ever 
thinks  of  describing  that  which  is  pleasant  and  joyous  by  such 
a  term?  Immersed  in  purity — immersed  in  joy — immersed  in 
peace — immersed  in  humility — it  is  barbarous  phraseology  ! 
If  our  Lord  had  designed  to  make  some  one  particular  mode 
of  using  the  emblematic  water  essential,  analogy  would  have 
led  him  to  fix  upon  either  of  the  other  modes  before  immersion. 
See  pp.  19,  20,  21. 

Concluding  Remarks. 

The  reader  has  now  both  sides  of  the  controversy  before 
Jiim,  and  will  judge  for  himself  where  the  truth  lies.  If  Mr. 
ICague  has  succeeded  in  sweeping  away  the  positions  assumed 
in  our  former  treatise  ;  if  he  has  demonstrated  that  the  term 
baptize  always  specifies  one  particular  mode  of  using  a  liquid, 
and  that  that  mode  is  immersion  ;  if  he  has  shown  that  our 
blessed  Lord,  and  all  others  whom  John  baptized,  were  im- 
mersed ;  if  he  has  proved  that  the  apostles  invariably  immersed 
their  converts  ; — in  a  word,  if  he  has  made  it  clear  that  this 
mode  of  administering  the  rite  is  essential  to  its  validity,  and 
that  it  was  so  considered  by  the  apostles  and  the  early  fathers 
of  the  church — if  he  has  satisfactorily  done  all  this,  then  let 
Mr.  Hague  be  followed  as  the  true  guide.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  if  our  positions  stand  firm,  notwithstanding  his  effort  to 
move  them  from  their  basis ;  if  no  satisfactory  proof  has  yet 
been  brought  forward,  showing  that  the  apostles  and  fathers 
deemed  the  particular  mode  of  using  the  purifying  water,  for 
which  Mr.  Hague  contends,  essential  to  baptism ;  if  the  con- 
troverted term,  like  our  words  go,  travel,  dye,  wash,  purify, 
&c.,  denotes  an  effect  without  reference  to  mode,  and  this  is 
proved  by  examples  from  both  inspired  and  uninspired  writers — 


140  STRICTURES    ON 

then  Mr.  Hague  is  sadly  in  the  wrong.  He  wears  a  yoke  of 
bondage  which  Christ  Jesus  has  not  imposed  upon  his  follow- 
ers. And  because  he  would  debar  us  from  the  Lord's  table 
for  not  bowing  our  necks  to  this  yoke,  he  is  guilty  of  infring- 
ing our  Christian  liberty,  and  of  exercising  an  usurped  author- 
ity in  the  church. 

In  coming  to  a  final  decision,  let  the  reader  not  forget,  that 
the  advocates  of  exclusive  immersion  assume  more  responsi- 
bility than  we  do,  and  have  more  to  prove.  Their  principles 
of  close  communion  lay  them  under  obligations  to  show,  BE- 
YOND A  REASONABLE  DOUBT,  that  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism adopted  by  them  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  rite,  or, 
as  Mr.  Hague  gives  us  to  understand,  is  the  rite  itself.  If  the 
reader  fails,  therefore,  to  discover  that  degree  of  certainty  on 
either  side  which  he  could  desire  ;  if  after  all  it  appears  to  be 
a  matter  of  mere  conjecture  where  the  truth  lies ;  if  the  evi- 
dence on  both  sides  seems  to  be  almost  equally  balanced,  and 
he  can  arrive  at  no  conclusion  which  is  perfectly  satisfactory — 
then,  in  fact,  the  question  is  settled  in  our  favor.  For  what 
intelligent  and  candid  mind  could  ever  feel  justified  in  basing 
close  communion  upon  an  external  ceremony  of  doubtful  obli- 
gation? Will  the  reader  presume  to  enforce  on  others  a 
religious  ceremony,  the  obligatory  nature  of  which  is  not  fully 
made  out  in  his  own  mind?  Shall  not  Christian  liberality 
have  the  advantage  of  his  doubts?  Will  he  disown  and  reject 
from  the  communion  and  fellowship  of  the  saints  a  large  pro- 
portion of  the  most  devoted  Christians  in  the  world,  before  he 
is  quite  sure  that  obedience  to  his  Divine  Master  render*  it 
necessary?  Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  our  blessed 
Lord  must  be  better  pleased  with  that  disposition  in  a  disci- 
ple, which  leads  him  to  err  on  the  side  of  Christian  kindness 
than  with  the  spirit  of  exclusiveness  and  intolerance.  Before 
the  reader  comes  to  a  final  decision,  then,  let  him  put  the 
argument  in  favor  of  immersion  to  the  test  of  the  inquiry — Is 


MR.  Hague's  review.  141 

this  sure  and  satisfactory  ground  on  which  to  base  close  com- 
munion ? 

We  offer  not  these  remarks  because  we  feel  that  obscurity- 
hangs  about  the  question  in  dispute.  To  us,  the  path  of  duty- 
is  clear.  Mr.  Hague  very  charitably-  insinuates  that  our  con- 
fidence arises  from  the  limitation  of  our  views.  As  to  that 
matter,  the  reader  will  judge  between  him  and  us.  We  will 
only  say,  that  the  farther  we  carry  our  examination,  the  more 
settled  is  our  conviction  that  exclusive  immersion  is  directly 
opposed  to  the  will  of  Christ. 

Towards  the  advocates  of  exclusive  immersion  we  cherish 
no  unkind  feelings.  Among  them  are  many  with  whom  we 
are  familiarly  acquainted,  and  whose  friendship  we  highly 
value.  But  with  their  exclusive  principle  we  have  no  sym- 
pathy. It  is  a  pity  that  brethren,  who  embrace  a  common 
faith  with  us,  who  are  enlisted  under  the  same  banners,  and 
who  will  finally  sit  with  us  as  guests  at  the  Marriage  Supper 
of  the  Lamb,  should  here  on  earth  feel  under  the  necessity 
of  spreading  a  separate  table.  In  this  respect  they  maintain 
an  unenviable  singularity.  How  long  shall  it  be  so  1  How 
long  shall  their  churches  be  the  only  place  on  earth,  or  in 
heaven,  where  the  true  disciple  receives  no  welcome  to  the 
full  communion  of  the  saints?  Surely  the  sooner  this  exclu- 
sive principle  is  extirpated  the  better.  Why  will  not  our 
brethren  catch  the  spirit  of  one  of  their  brightest  luminaries, 
the  illustrious  Robert  Hall?  Let  his  sentiments  prevail,  and 
we  should  hail  the  dawn  of  a  brighter  day.  Such  a  reforma- 
tion, such  a  union  of  Christian  brethren,  as  the  adoption  of  his 
principles  would  effect,  (to  use  his  own  language,)  "would 
be  a  nearer  approach  to  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the  church, 
than  the  annals  of  time  have  yet  recorded.  In  the  accom- 
plishment of  our  Savior's  prayer,  we  should  behold  a  demon- 
stration of  the  divinity  of  his  mission  which  the  most  impious 
could  not  resist ;  we  should  behold  in  the  church  a  peaceful 
haven,  invixing  us  to  retire  from  the  tossings  and  perils  of  this 


142         _  STRICTURES    ON    MR.    HAGUE's    REVIEW. 

unquiet  ocean  to  a  sacred  enclosure,  a  sequestered  spot,  which 
the  storms  and  tempests  of  the  world  were  not  permitted  to 
invade. 

*  Intus  aquae  dulces,  vivoque  sedilia  saxo  : 
INympharum  domus.     Hie  fessas  non  vincula  naves 
Ulla  tenent :  unco  non  adligat  anchora  morsu.' 

"  The  genius  of  the  gospel,  let  it  once  for  all  he  remem- 
bered, is  not  ceremonial,  but  spiritual ;  consisting  not  in  meats 
or  drinks,  or  outward  observances,  but  in  the  cultivation  of 
such  interior  graces  as  compose  the  essence  of  virtue,  perfect 
the  character,  and  purify  the  heart.  These  form  the  soul  of 
religion  ;  all  the  rest  are  but  her  terrestrial  attire,  which  she 
will  lay  aside  when  she  passes  the  threshold  of  eternity. 
When,  therefore,  the  obligations  of  humility  and  love  come 
into  competition  with  a  punctual  observance  of  external  rites, 
the  genius  of  religion  will  easily  determine  to  which  we  should 
incline." 


143 


APPENDIX. 

NOTE  A. 

After  quoting  a  passage  from  Tyndal,  (page  77,)  Mr.  Hague  says 
— "  Probably  Mr.  Towne  was  not  aware  of  the  existence  of  such  a 
passage  from  the  pen  of  Tyndal,  or  he  would  not  have  spoken  as  he 
nas  done."  Wonderful !  If  this  passage  was  quoted  merely  to  show 
that  Mr.  Hague  in  this  particular  had  read  somewhere  a  quotation 
from  Tyndal,  which  Mr.  Towne  never  saw,  and  Mr.  Hague  never 
saw  in  its  place  in  its  own  hook,  it  is  to  the  point.     But  if  it  was 

?[Uoted  as  a  refutation  of  any  statement  of  ours  respecting  Tyndal,  it 
alls  far  short  of  the  mark.  Does  it  show  that  Tyndal  was  not  the 
translator  of  the  New  Testament?  No.  Does  it  show  that  he  trans- 
lated it  according  to  the  principle  of  Immersers  ?  No.  Does  it  show 
that  he  practised  immersion  ?  No.  That  he  in  any  way  sustained 
"  the  assumption,"  "  that  the  word  signifies  only  immersion  ?  "     No. 

If  it  be  any  mystery  that  Tyndal  so  expressed  himself  as  to  allow, 
as  we  do,  that  plunging  might  be  baptism,  Mr.  Hague  himself  has 
solved  that  mystery,  by  a  similar  quotation  from  Cowper,  in  a  note  on 
the  same  page,  in  which  it  appears  that  Cowper,  as  well  as  Tyndal, 
thought  such  figures  of  speech  not  incongruous  with  the  anti-mers- 
ing  theory.  And  if  still  more  light  is  wanting.  Dr.  Manton,  on  Ro- 
mans vi.,  uses  essentially  the  same  illustration  which  Mr.  H.  has 
quoted  from  Tyndal ;  and  in  the  same  page  decidedly  contends  against 
uie  Immerser's  theory.  Mr.  Hague  must  indeed  be  grateful  for  small 
favors,  if  he  can  make  so  much  of  a  casual  figurative  expression,  from 
one  so  decidedly  against  him. 

NOTE  B. 

Mr.  Hague  sa^'s— "  Very  few  baptisms  [immersions]  in  this  coun- 
try trace  their  pedigree  to  Roger  Williams."  But,  according  to  his 
own  account  of  the  matter,  it  was  more  than  twenty  years  after  the 
organizing  of  Roger  Williams'  church  before  the  first  church  of 
English  immersers  was  established  in  New  England.  And  if  that 
church,  in  that  time,  occupying  the  focus  of  the  immersing  interest,  did 
not  beget  and  send  forth  immersing  children,  so  as  to  cover  a  larger 
portion  of  the  immersing  field  than  a  church  established  twenty  years 
after,  it  had  a  rare  experience.  But  what  if  it  were  so  ?  did  not  the 
branches  of  Mr.  Williams'  church  baptize?  and  were  Immersers 
ever  in  the  habit  of  discrediting  those  baptisms,  as  Mr.  Hague  now  vir- 
tually does  ?  Was  any  distinction  from  that  day  to  this  ever  observed 
between  immersions  "having  a  domestic,  and  those  having  a  foreign 
origin  ?  Would  any  advocate  for  immersion  now  deem  it  a  defect  in 
his  baptism,  should  he  find  that  it  came  in  direct  line  from  the  nnapos- 
tolic  baptism  of  Williams  ?  If  not,  of  what  value  are  Mr.  Hague's 
suggestions  on  that  point  ? 
13 


144  APPENDIX. 


NOTE  C. 


THE    NEW    BIBLE, 


It  has  been  announced  in  the  papers  that  the  new  translation 
of  the  Bible  has  been  published ;  though  we  have  not  yet  seen 
it.  We  understand,  that,  while  it  substitutes  immerse  and  im- 
mersion for  baptize  and  baptism,  in  most  cases,  it  excepts  the  case 
of  John  the  Baptist ;  and  forbears  to  carry  out  its  principle,  so  as  to 
say,  as  it  should,  John  the  Immerser.  What  is  the  matter  7  Has 
a  distinction  after  all  been  found  between  immersing  and  baptizing  ? 
Or  are  our  friends  afraid  to  call  things  by  their  right  names  ?  Or  are 
they  afraid  that  others  will,  if  they  do ;  and  so  that  they  shall  lose 
the  advantage  which  they  now  have  in  a  monopoly  of  the  name  Bap- 
tist ?  Whatever  evils  may  follow  this  attempt  to  give  currency  to  a 
sectarian  Bible — however  nmch  it  is  to  be  deplored  that  sectarianism 
has  now  at  last  invaded  the  Bible  itself,  this  good  will  result  from  it — 
the  public  will  have  a  practical  illustration  of  the  absurdity  of  the 
principle,  which  makes  immersion  to  be  everywhere  identical  with 
baptism. 

NOTE  D. 

THE    GREEK     CHURCH. 

The  view  which  we  have  given  of  the  origin  of  immersion  in  the 
primitive  church,  accounts  satisfactorily  for  the  existing  practice  of 
the  Greek  church,  and  is  more  than  an  answer  to  Mr.  Hague's  quo- 
tations on  that  subject.  But  we  cannot  forbear  to  cite  a  few  sentences 
from  Dr.  Beecher's  work,  named  above.  "  The  opinion  of  the  Greek 
church  is  often  alleged  as  decisive  in  favor  of  the  meaning  immerse. 
Being  by  name  the  Greek  church,  it  is  inferred,  of  course,  that  they 
must  be  good  judges  of  the  import  of  a  Greek  word.  In  reply  to  this, 
I  would  ask— Is  modern  Italian  ancient  Latin?  If  not,  neither  is 
modern  Greek  ancient  Greek.  That  modern  Greek  resembles  its 
ancient  stock  more  than  Italian  does  the  Latin,  I  do  not  deny. 
But  the  resemblance  is  not  such,  that  the  opinion  of  a  modern  Greek 
scholar,  on  a  point  like  this,  is  worth  any  more  than  that  of  a  modern 
German,  Italian,  or  English  scholar.  No  man  can  form  an  opinion 
on  this  subject,  except  by  a  study  of  the  facts  found  in  the  ancient 
writers,  who  exhibit  the  usage  in  question;  and  his  opinion  is  worth 
most,  who  most  carefully  investigates,  compares,  classifies  and  judges 
in  view  of  the  whole  case.  And  if  this  be  so,  the  opinions  of  the 
modern  Greek  church,  unsustained  by  argument,  ought  to  have  no 
peculiar  weight.  Their  proficiency  in  philological  studies  certainly 
does  not  exceed  that  ol  other  European  scholars,  to  say  nothing 
of  those  of  America." 


BAPTISMAL   QUESTION,   NO.   11. 


AN 


EXAMINATION 

OF   THE 

REV.  MESSRS.  COOKE    AND  TOWNE'S 
REJOINDER  TO  THE  REVIEW 

CF    THEIR 

HINTS   TO   AN  INQUIRER 

ON   THE 

SUBJECT    OF    BAPTISM. 


By    WILLIAM    HAGUE, 

Pastor  of  Federal  St.  Baptist  Church. 


BOSTON: 
GOULD,    KENDALL    AND    LINCOLN, 

59   WASHINGTON  STREET. 

1842. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1S42, 

By  GOULD,  KENDALL  &  LINCOLN, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Massachusetts. 


William  S.  Damrell,  Printer,  No.  11  Cornhill. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


Absence  from  home  on  several  summer  excursions,  followed 
by  severe  sickness,  has  prevented  me  from  replying  to  the 
Rejoinder  of  Rev.  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne,  with  that  degree  of 
promptness  with  which  a  discussion  of  this  sort  should  ever  be  pur- 
sued, unless  it  be  brought  to  some  clear  and  definite  issue.  As  the 
delay  has  been  caused  by  the  dispensation  of  a  kind  and  unerring 
Providence,  I  have  cheerfully  acquiesced,  knowing  that  "my 
times  are  in  his  hand,"  that  the  hairs  of  our  heads  are  all  num- 
bered, and  that  from  the  minutest  events  of  life.  He  often  brings 
forth  great  and  lasting  good. 

Although  I  could  employ  my  pen  on  many  subjects,  more 
agreeably  than  on  this  controverted  one,  respecting  which,  so 
many  esteemed  friends  differ,  yet,  inasmuch  as  the  initiating  rite 
of  the  Christian  religion  is  a  part  of  that  heritage  of  truth  which 
Christ  has  left  us,  and  which  we  are  commanded  to  preserve  in 
its  purity,  I  could  not  with  a  clear  conscience,  be  silent,  when 
others  are  so  active  in  inculcating  views  of  baptism,  which  seem 
to  me  entirely  to  set  aside  the  original  ordinance  enjoined  by 
Christ  in  the  great  commission,  and  which  he  designed  to  be 
kept  in  its  primitive  simplicity,  "  unto  the  end  of  the  Avorld."  I 
have  written  only  in  defence.  So  have  most  others,  who  have 
published  any  thing  on  the  same  side  of  the  question.  It  was 
long  since  observed  by  the  excellent  Dr.  Ryland,  that  "  often  as 
we  have  been  charged  with  intemperate  zeal  on  this  subject,  it 
is  remarkable  that  most  of  our  principal  writers  have  only  replied 
to  attacks  first  made  on  our  denomination ;  for  example,  Dr.  Gale 


to  Dr.  Wall ;  Mr.  Stennett  to  Mr.  Russen ;  Dr.  Gill  to  Maurice, 
Bostwick,  ToAvgood,  Mayo,  &.c. ;  Dr.  Stennett  to  Dr.  Addington." 
So  in  this  city,  very  little,  if  any  thing,  has  been  published  by  us, 
except  in  reply  to  others.  Dr.  Baldwin  wrote  more  largely  than 
any  of  his  brethren,  but  it  was  in  answer  to  the  arguments  of  Dr. 
Worcester,  of  Salem. 

If  it  should  seem  to  any  reader,  that,  in  the  present  production 
I  have  expressed  too  strong  a  confidence  in  the  correctness  of  our 
opinions,  let  me  ask  such  an  one  to  consider  the  fact,  that  on  no 
question  in  theology,  is  there  a  more  extensive  agreement  of 
opinion  throughout  the  greater  part  of  Christendom,  than  on  this, 
lohat  ivas  the  mode  of  apostolic  baptism  ?  The  Greek  and  Latin 
churches  are  the  largest  in  the  world.  The  Greeks  charge  the 
Latins  with  having  altered  the  primitive  immersion  into  sprink- 
ling. The  Latins  own  the  fact,  and  assert  the  right  of  the  Church 
to  alter.  It  is  impossible  that  any  historical  question  could  be 
settled  on  clearer  evidences,  so  that  it  was  not  without  reason, 
that  a  celebrated  mathematician.  Dr.  Gregory,  author  of  the 
"  Letters  on  the  Evidences  of  Christianity,"  took  occasion  once  to 
say,  that  it  is  "  the  only  question  in  theology,  where  the  evidence  is 
all  on  one  side."  The  great  peculiarity  of  the  Baptists  is  in  strictly 
adhering  to  what  is  so  widely  acknowledged  to  have  been  apos- 
tolic, saying,  as  they  do,  that  if  "  the  Bible  is  the  only  rule  of 
faith,"  we  must,  as  consistent  Protestants,  conform  our  practice 
to  the  rule,  and  show  our  faith,  by  our  works,  our  love,  by  our 
obedience. 


CONTENTS 


Page. 

Introduction.    Spirit  of  the  Rejoinder, 5 

Examination  of  alleged  Erroks. 

1.  Luke's  quotation  Irom  Isaiah,  in  Acts  8:  32, 7 

2.  TuaRETiN's  testimony  to  tlie  proper  sense  of  baptize, &-12 

His  proof  of  It  by  tlie  Sybilline  verse, 13 

His  agreement  on  that  point  with  Beza,  Casaubon  and  Witsius,  ...  16 

The  Sybilline  verse,  a  lest  of  the  force  of  tlie  word, 21 

3.  Luther's  testimony  to  the  proper  sense  of  the  word, 23 

Lutheran  theologians  cited, 24 

4.  Scapula's  tesumoTiy,— drawn  from  Stephanus, 26-29 

5.  The  concessions  of  other  Tedobaptist  writers, 29 

6.  On  immersions  among  the  Jews. 31 

7.  On  the  testimony  of  the  lexicons,— Schleusneb,  Wahl  and  Bret- 

SCHNEIDER, 32 

8.  9.  10.  On  the  testimony  oxolher  lexicographers, 33 

The  principal  mistake  of  the  authors  of  the  Rejoinder, 44 

Principles  of  Philologv^ 45 

1.  These  of  essendul  importance. — misstatement  of  them, 47 

2.  What  the  fundamental  principles  really  are. 48-50 

3.  DifFerence  between  the  meaning  of  a  word  and  its  application, 50 

4.  Further  elucidation  ofths  philological  error  of  the  Rejoinder, 52-57 

5.  Professor  Stuart's  testimony,    58 

G.  Tholuck's  remark  on  an  important  distinction, 59 

7.  Refutation  of  the  Rejoinder  on  the  citation  from  Josephus, 60 

8.  Refutati  tn  of  the  Rejoinder  on  other  citations, 61-63 

9.  The  false  philology  of  the  Rejoinder  proved  by  English  words  of  its 

own  selection,  viz.,  Spring  and  Bar, ". 63-64 

Application  of  oun  Argument  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 66 

The  philology  of  the  Rejoinder  the  same  as  thai  of  Romish  writers  on 

the  mass. 6S 

Infant  sprinkling  the  "  weak  point"  of  Protestantism, 69 

Examination  op  Statements  in  the  Introduction  to  the  Rejoinder,  70 

On  Arguments  omitted  in  the  Review  of  the  Hints, 74 

Reason  for  the  omission, 74 

Statement  of  the  favorite  argument  drawn  from  the  mode  of  the  Spirit's' 

influence, .". 76 

Seven  proofs  that  this  argument  assumes  what  is  not  true, 77-89 

Four  proofs  that  the  principle  of  the  argument  is  fallacious, 90-94 

Burial  with  Christ  in  Baptism, 95 

Five  objections  to  the  common  interpretation  set  aside, 96-100 

Tha  substitute  for  the  common  interpretation  refuted, 101 

Proofa  that  the  common  interpretation  is  the  right  one, 103-108 

Learned  Critics  and  Theologians. 109 

The  claim  of  the  Baptists  to  the  testimony  of  those  cited  in  the  Review, 

vindicated 109-113 

Literature  of  the  World,  ^ 114 

The  Citations  of  the  Classics, 115 

Examination  of  President  Beecher's  Letter  to  Mr.  Towne,. 118 

Compliance  with  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne's  RsauEST, 129 

Sl.MILARITY    OF   THE    ARGUMENTS    FOR   UnIVERSALISM   AND    SPRINKLING,...  130 

Baptism  of  Beds, 131 

JoH.\'s  Baptism, 133 

Baptism  of  Chrlst, 134 

Baptism  of  the  Three  Thousand, 135 

Bapti'^m  OF  the  Ethiopian, — Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper, 1-37 

How  Sprinkling  came  to  be  called  Baptism, 138 

The  Argument  from  Figures, 133 

Brief  Summary. 139 

Conclusion. 142 


EXAMINATION 


It  gave  me  pleasure  to  learn  from  a  public  paper, 
that  the  gentlemen  whose  "  Hints  to  an  Inquirer  on  the 
subject  of  Baptism"  I  had  had  occasion  to  review,  were 
intending  to  furnish  a  reply.  Not  that  I  wished  to 
protract  the  controversy,  but  such  was  the  position  in 
which  they  were  left  in  regard  to  many  of  their  state- 
ments, that  justice  to  themselves,  as  Christian  teachers, 
seemed  to  require  that  they  should  bring  forward  some 
new  explanations,  or,  in  case  they  saw  that  they  had 
gone  too  far,  or  said  aught  inadvertently,  that  they 
should  present  a  candid  retraction.  Indeed,  as  to  some 
points,  it  seemed  to  me  quite  probable  that  they  would 
do  the  latter,  especially,  considering  that  their  articles 
were  first  prepared  for  the  columns  of  a  newspaper,  and 
that  in  that  kind  of  writing  one  is  easily  tempted  to  use 
expressions  which  calm  reflection  will  not  justify.  They 
have  chosen,  however,  to  unite  again,  in  an  attempt  to 
avert  the  force  of  the  testimonies  which  I  produced 
against  them,  and  to  countenance  each  other  in  re- 
affirming all  that  they  had  said.  The  reader  is  aware 
that  in  preparing  my  first  review,  I  had  the  impression 
that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Towne,  one  of  our  city  pastors,  was 
the  sole  author  of  the  work  then  before  me.  It  was 
with  surprise  I  learned  that  there  was  connected  with 
him  in  the  effort,  a  senior  brother  belonging  to  the 
editorial  corps.  This  fact  explained  much  that  seemed 
strange  in  the  niatter  and  spirit  of  the  production.  The 
work  now  under  consideration  bears  with  it  also  the  air 
1* 


of  the  editor's  office,  rather  than  of  the  minister's  study. 
The  presiding  genius  of  the  one  place  is  certainly 
different  from  that  of  the  other.  Their  proper  employ- 
ments are  different,  and  they  lead  men  to  cultivate 
different  moods  of  mind,  and  different  styles  of  expres- 
sion. In  the  office,  one  is  more  affected  by  the  hurry 
and  din  of  business,  and  more  easily  forms  a  habit  of 
hasty  examination  and  of  adventurous  assertion,  tinged 
with  a  glow  of  party  feeling ;  in  the  study,  there  is  far 
more  that  is  favorable  to  calm  thought,  to  thorough 
research,  and  the  spirit  of  devotion.  A  production  from 
the  office,  we  are  not  much  surprised  to  see  imbued  with 
the  elements  of  strife,  reeking  wet  with  "  the  waters  of 
Meribah  ; "  but  that  which  comes  from  the  study,  we 
expect  to  be  pervaded  with  the  genial  spirit  of  candor, 
charity,  and  truth,  all  baptized  in  "  Siloa's  brook,  which 
flows  fast  by  the  oracle  of  God."  Whatever,  then,  in 
the  work  before  us,  seems  not  in  keeping  with  the  air 
and  character  of  the  pastor's  study,  we  may  trace  to  its 
home  in  a  place  less  near  to  heaven. 

This  last  remark  I  make  the  more  readily,  because  in 
an  editorial  article  of  the  Puritan,  the  sentiment  was 
some  time  since  openly  avowed,  that  in  the  baptismal 
controversy  a  sort  of  tact  in  meeting  unreasonable 
prejudice  was  much  more  needed  than  talent ;  and  that 
instead  of  solid  argument,  there  was  wanted  a  "skill  in 
shooting  airy  fancies  on  the  wing."  Much  more  ap- 
peared, of  the  same  import,  showing  that  it  was  the  writer's 
aim  to  study  how  to  say  those  things  which  would  make 
an  impression  on  the  popular  ear,  without  much  regard 
to  the  established  principles  of  reasoning.  After  reading 
the  declaration  of  a  sentiment  like  this,  justifying  as  it 
does  a  certain  kind  of  hardihood  and  recklessness  of 
expression,  merely  for  the  sake  of  effect,  I  should  have 
been  quite  indisposed  to  notice  any  pubhcation  on 
baptism  bearing  the  name  of  Mr.  Cooke  alone,  unless 
indeed  it  were  accompanied  with  a  frank   and  ample 


retractation.  As  I  have  replied,  however  to  his  article, 
while  supposing  Mr.  Towne  to  be  the  only  writer,  I  feel 
bound  now  to  proceed  with  an  examination  of  this  new 
work  of  their  joint  authorship. 

In  glancing  at  the  pamphlet  now  under  review,  I 
cannot  but  sympathize  with  the  feelings  of  the  honest 
inquirer,  who,  having  read  this  Rejoinder,  should  ask  in 
a  tone  of  despondency,  "  Who  can  tell  what  is  truth  ? 
If  men  who  ought  to  be  competent  witnesses  of  facts 
differ  in  their  testimony,  on  what  are  we  to  depend  ?  " 
Nevertheless,  let  such  an  one  take  courage.  Let  him 
resolve  to  be  true  to  himself,  to  use  all  the  means  of 
knowledge  which  God  has  given  him,  to  act  according 
to  the  light  he  receives,  and  with  sincere  prayer  for  the 
divine  blessing,  he  will  not  be  left  to  grojie  in  doubt. 
In  the  case  before  us,  if  he  will  give  me  his  attention 
through  the  following  pages,  I  trust  that  he  will  more 
clearly  see  the  sources  of  those  discrepancies  of  opinion 
and  assertion  which  have  tended  most  to  perplex  him. 

The  more  easily  to  meet  the  wants  of  every  reader,  I 
will  announce  the  following  method,  which  I  shall 
pursue  in  discussing  the  merits  of  the  Rejoinder  : 

I.  I  shall  examine  our  authors'  list  of  my  "erroneous 
statements  of  ficts  and  authorities." 

II.  Consider  the  section,  which  involves  the  turning 
point  of  the  controversy,  entitled,  "Principles  of  Philol- 
ogy."     (p.  106.) 

III.  Review  the  other  sections  of  the  pamphlet,  in 
the  order  of  their  occurrence. 

First  of  all,  then,  the  list  of  errors  demands, our 
attention.  This  commences  on  the  8Sth  page.  The 
first  error  is  thus  stated  : 

"Error  1.  We  adduced  the  passage,  'He  shall 
sprinkle  many  nations,'  as  proof  that  the  mind  of  the 
Ethiopian  eunuch  had  been  directed,  previous  to  his 
baptism,  to  sprinkling  ;  and  hence  we  inferred  a  proba- 


8. 

bility  that  he  was  sprinkled.  To  this  Mr.  Hague 
replies  :  '  Strange  assertion  !  Here  I  ask,  did  not  Mr. 
Towne  know  that  the  version  of  the  Seventy  (in  which 
the  word  translated  sprinkle  is  rendered  astonish)  is  the 
very  one  from  which  Luke  quotes  the  passage  in  ques- 
tion ?  The  evangelist  himself  takes  the  text  of  the 
Seventy,  word  for  word.'  Such  is  Mr.  Hague's  asser- 
tion ;  and  yet  the  evangelist  does  not  quote  word  for 
word  from  the  Seventy,  but  departs  from  that  version  in 
four  instances  in  less  than  four  lines,  as  will  be  seen  by 
the  note  below." 

The  reader  will  certainly  unite  with  me  in  a  feeling 
of  astonishment  at  this  remark,  when  I  refer  him  to 
another  source  of  information  on  the  point.  The  first 
American  edition  of  Dr.  Bloomfield's  Greek  Testament 
was  published  in  Boston  in  the  year  1837,  with  a  preface 
by  Prof.  Stuart.  It  is  remarkable  for  the  purity  of  the 
text,  and  the  attention  given  to  that  subject.  On 
Luke's  quotation  from  Isaiah  (Acts  8 :  32),  Dr.  Bloom- 
field  says  in  his  note,  "  These  words  are  taken  from 
Isaiah  53 :  7,  8,  and  follow  the  Septuagint  version 
EXACTLY ;  the  verbal  discrepancies  which  occur  not 
heijig  found  in  the  Alexandrian  and  other  good 
manuscripts  of  the  Septuagint.'^  Now,  what  must  I 
think  of  the  accuracy  of  my  opponents  as  critics  and 
reasoners,  when  they  call  that  "  Mr.  Hague's  assertion," 
which  is  not  only  set  forth  in  standard  works,  but  even 
in  those  which  are  republished  in  our  own  city  from 
European  editions,  and,  of  course,  must  be  to  them  easy 
of  access  ?  I  would  not  for  a  moment  admit  the  thought, 
that  they  would  say  any  thing  contrary  to  their  knowl- 
edge of  the  fact ;  but  as  the  means  of  information  were 
at  hand,  I  marvel  that  they  did  not  use  them. 

The   second  charge  of  erroneous  statement  is  thus 
made: 

"  Error  2.     On    page   76,   he   says   that   Turretin 
agrees   with   him   in   opinion   as   to  immersion.     Now, 


what  is  it  to  agree  with  Mr.  Hague  on  this  subject  ?  It 
is  to  maintain  that  the  word  has  one  signification,  and 
one  only.  But  scarcely  a  writer  of  equal  note,  since 
the  days  of  the  apostles,  expresses  himself  more  decided- 
ly against  this  view  than  Turretin.  We  will  quote  the 
substance  of  his  remarks,  and  give  the  reader  his  own 
words  in  a  note  below." 

I  really  ought  to  express  my  thanks  to  our  authors 
for  giving  us  Turretin's  "  own  words  in  a  note  below," 
for  I  do  not  know  of  a  case  in  all  the  annals  of  contro- 
versy, where  men  have  so  readily  furnished  the  means 
of  their  own  refutation.  How  completely  this  has  been 
done  in  the  present  instance,  we  shall  see  in  a  moment, 
when  we  come  to  examine  the  passage.  Before  doing 
so,  however,  I  would  premise  two  remarks. 

(1.)  I  wish  to  state  with  more  perfect  precision  than 
my  reviewers  have  done,  what  it  is  to  agree  with  me  on 
the  subject  of  baptism.  They  have  expressed  it  rather 
loosely.  It  is  not  to  maintain  that  "  the  word  has  one 
meaning,  and  one  only,"  for  almost  every  word  in  every 
language  has  a  great  variety  of  figurative  or  tropical 
meanings,  and  men  daily  give  to  words  new  figurative 
applications.  But  it  is  to  maintain  that  this  word  has 
only  ox\Q  proper  or  literal  meaning.  "  The  first  in)por- 
tant  division  or  distinction  of  words,  in  respect  to  their 
meaning"  (says  Ernesti*),  "is  \nio proper  diud  tropical, 
i.  e.,  literal  and  figurative,  or  (better  still),  primary  and 
secondary."  "A  proper  word  is  a  definite  name  given 
to  a  certain  thing,  and  as  such  may  be  explained  by 
adverting  to  tlie  proper  names  of  persons.  A  tropical 
word  is  one  used  out  of  its  proper,  i.  e.,  original  sense, 
as,  rosy  face,  snowy  skin,  where  rosy  and  snowy  cannot 
be  literally  or  properly  predicated  of  the  skin.  The 
names  trope  and  tropical  come  from  the  Greek  word 
tropos  (r^o.Toc),  inversion,  change."  Here  an  important 
principle  is  stated.     No  man  can  be  a  competent  inter- 

*  Principles  of  Interpretation,  Prof.  Stuart's  translation,  p.  21. 


10 

preter,  who  does  not  distinguish  accurately  between 
literal  and  figurative  language.  The  Papists  defend 
Transubstantiation, — the  monstrous  doctrine,  that  in  the 
eucharist,  the  bread  and  wine  are  changed  into  the  real 
body  and  blood  of  Christ, — chiefly  by  confounding  the 
distinction  between  tropical  and  proper  words  in  the 
passage,  "This  is  my  body—this  is  my  blood."  The 
most  enormous  errors  in  religion  have  arisen  from 
neglecting  this  distinction ;  and  in  theological  discus- 
sions, the  first  important  question  often  is,  at  the  outset, 
whether  the  language  in  a  disputed  text  be  literal  or 
figurative.  Such  an  inquiry  is  indispensable  ;  for  by 
means  of  a  figure  or  trope,  a  word  is  sometimes  made  to 
denote  just  the  reverse  of  what  it  properly  signifies. 
For  instance,  there  is  one  kind  of  hyperbole  called 
anocesis,  which  enlarges  the  meaning,  and  another  called 
meiosis,  which  diminishes  it.  According  to  the  first, 
Cowley,  the  poet,  calls  a  copious  sprinkling  or  wetting, 
droimiing ;  as  when  he  says  of  Goliath,  that  he  lay 
"drowned  in  his  own  blood."  An  example  of  the 
second,  is  the  case  of  a  man,  who,  having  sli}3ped  and 
fallen  into  a  river,  made  light  of  his  submersion,  by 
saying  to  his  friends,  that  he  "  did  not  mind  a  little 
wetting.'^  In  such  tropes,  not  only  poetry  but  common 
conversation  abounds ;  and  to  confound  them  with  literal 
language,  would  be  attributing  to  a  writer  or  speaker  a 
sense  very  different,  if  not  the  very  opposite  of  what  be 
intends. 

Now,  it  is  universally  admitted,  that  the  word  baptize, 
in  the  commission  of  our  Lord,  and  in  the  plain  narra- 
tives of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  is  not  used  in  a 
figurative  sense.  As  Ernesti  observes  (p.  74),  ^'Laws, 
history,  didactic  works,  seldom  admit  tropes.  Legisla- 
tors in  their  statutes,  historians  in  their  narrations  of 
facts,  where  they  aim  simply  at  the  declaration  of  them, 
seldom  admit  tropes."  In  accordance  with  this  prin- 
ciple, my  position  relative  to  the  meaning  of  the  word 


11 

was  thus  stated  in  my  Review  (p.  9)  :  "  The  main 
question  is,  whether  the  word  used  by  Christ  to  enjoin 
baptism,  in  the  last  exercise  of  his  legislation  on  earth, 
in  giving  that  commission  which  is  binding  ^  to  the  end 
of  the  world,'  denotes  a  specific  act  or  not.  If  it  does 
not,  then  there  is  no  law  which  certainly  holds  us  to 
immersion.  If  it  does,  then  all  objections  drawn  from 
supposed  difficulties,  or  from  the  greater  convenience 
of  sprinkling,  are  no  more  to  be  regarded  as  arguments, 
than  those  questions  which  skeptics  sometimes  ask,  in 
order  to  throw  discredit  on  the  very  letter  and  spirit  of 
revelation." 

(2.)  As  our  authors  have  selected  Turretin  from  a 
number  of  other  celebrated  Psdobaptist  writers  whom  I 
mentioned,  and  have  given  him  so  prominent  a  place, 
it  is  evident  that  they  regarded  this  quotation  from  him 
as  presenting  a  strong  case  on  their  side.  If,  however, 
it  shall  appear  that  this  entirely  fails  to  answer  their 
purpose,  it  will  be  but  reasonable  for  the  reader  to  infer 
that  the  concessions  which  I  claimed  from  the  other 
writers,  are  equally  valid  in  sustaining  my  position. 

Now  why  did  I  refer  to  Turretin  ?  I  spoke  of  him 
as  one,  who  practised  sprinkling  as  baptism.  I  placed 
his  name  in  a  list  of  celebrated  Paedobaptist  scholars. 
What  then  was  my  design,  when,  by  using  his  name,  I 
availed  myself  of  his  authority?  It  was  to  show,  that 
although  as  a  member  of  a  church  which  used  sprinkling, 
he  adhered  to  \he  practice,  it  was  not  on  the  ground  of 
the  literal  and  proper  meaning  of  the  word  baptize. 
This  great  point  he  concedes  to  us.  When  I  spoke  of 
Turretin,  Luther  and  others  as  acquiescing  in  the  practice 
of  sprinkling,  I  implied,  of  course,  that  they  had  some 
reason  for  so  doing ;  but  my  assertion  was,  that  they 
did  not  assign  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word  as  that 
reason.  The  full  advantage  of  this  argument,  they 
yield  to  the  Baptists. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  quotation. 


12 

[1.]  In  order  to  give  his  idea  of  the  proper  meaning 
of  the  word  baptize,  Turretin  says,  "Baptism  is  a  word 
of  Greek  origin,  derived  from  bapto,  tingere  et  imbuere, 
and  from-baptizo,  intingere  et  immergere.'^  Now  here, 
seeing  that  he  translates  bapto  into  Latin,  by  the  word 
tingo,  our  authors  render  this  merely  tinge,  and  make 
the  following  remark  on  the  whole  sentence  :  "  Turretin 
does  not  allow  that  bapto,  the  radical  word,  means  to 
immerse  at  all,  and  gives  baptizo  another  signification 
before  that  of  immerse.  "  (p.  93).  That  any  English 
reader  may  be  able  to  appreciate  the  peculiar  worth  of 
this  criticism,  let  him  take  Ainsworth's  Enghsh  Diction- 
ary with  Latin  definitions,  and  turn  to  the  word  Dip. 
He  will  find  it  thus  written  ;  Dip — tingo,  intingo,  im- 
mergo.  The  same  words  in  the  same  order  are  found  in 
other  dictionaries.  Tingo  is  given  as  the  first  Latin  word 
to  translate  Dip.  And  yet  my  reviewers  tell  us  that 
"Turretin  does  not  allow  that  the  radical  word  bapto 
means  to  immerse  at  all  I  ^^     Comment  is  unnecessary. 

In  regard  to  Tingo,  the  case  is  this.  The  Latin 
word  for  Dyer  is  Tinctor ;  Tingo  is  a  dyer's  word, 
denoting  the  act  of  dyeing,  and  as  that  is  generally 
done  by  dipping,  the  Latins  got  into  the  habit  of  using 
tingo  to  translate  bapto,  which  means  to  dip.  Thus 
Dr.  Campbell  (of  the  Presbyterian  church)  observes  in 
his  note  on  Matt.  3:  11,  "the  word  baptize,  both  in 
sacred  authors  and  in  classical,  signifies  to  dip,  to 
immerse,  and  was  rendered  by  Tertullian,  the  oldest  of 
the  Latin  Fathers,  by  tingere,  the  term  used  for  dyeing 
cloth,  which  was  by  immersion.  It  is  always  construed 
suitably  to  this  meaning." 

Let  it  be  noticed  however,  that  wdien  Turretin 
mentions  baptizo,  the  only  form  of  the  word  used  in  the 
New  Testament,  to  designate  the  rite  of  baptism,  he 
speaks  of  it  as  a  stronger  term  than  bapto.  This  is 
in  accordance  with  a  remark  of  the  celebrated  Porson 
of  Cambridge,   that   both   words  expressed  immersion. 


13 

but  that  baptlzo  is  the  stronger  word  of  the  two.  Tur- 
retin  renders  it  not  only  by  immergo,  but  intingo,  which 
means  to  dip  in,  and  is  regarded  by  the  lexicographers 
as  denoting  a  complete  immersion. 

(2.)  The  first  example  which  Turretin  cites  to  illus- 
trate the  word,  is  a  phrase  from  Plutarch, — '•'  baptize 
yourself  in  the  sea."  As  my  reviewers  translate  this 
instance  of  the  word  by  plunge,  there  is  no  dispute  as 
to  its  meaning.  This  then  is  acknowledged  to  be  a 
plain  case.  And  as  this  is  Turretin's  first  example, 
who  can  doubt  about  what  he  understood  to  be  the 
proper  meaning  of  baptize? 

(3.)  He  proceeds  to  illustrate  this  further,  by  quoting 
a  celebrated  line,  which  Plutarch  mentions  in  his  life  of 
Theseus,  the  founder  of  the  city  of  Athens.  It  is  a 
brief  expression  of  the  Sybil  touching  the  fortunes  of  that 
city.  The  oracle  compares  Athens  to  a  blown  bladder 
floating  on  the  water,  which,  though  it  may  be  pressed 
under  the  surface,  will  not  sink  to  the  bottom,  but  by 
its  own   buoyancy,   will   rise   again   when   left  to  itself. 

The  line  is,  yiaxog  SumiC^ri,  dvvav  8s   tol  ov    6e\uig    egxi; 

of  which  I  gave  the  version  of  Dr.  Langhorne,  the 
English  translator  of  Plutarch,  as  follows  :  The  bladder 
raay  be  dipped,  but  never  drowned.  This,  Messrs. 
Cooke  and  Towne  call  a  "loose  translation,''  and  insist 
on  rendering  it,  "  Thou  mayest  be  baptized,  O  bladder, 
but  it  is  not  permitted  to  thee  to  go  under  the  water ! " 
The  word  which  Langhorne  rendered  dipped,  is  haptizo  ; 
that  rendered  drowned,  is  dunai.  This  line  is  of  great 
importance  in  this  discussion  ;  (1)  because  it  contains 
not  the  word  bapto,  which  is  never  used  in  the  Bible  to 
denote  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  but  haptizo,  which  is 
always  employed  for  this  purpose  ;  (2)  because  this 
word  is  so  strikingly  contrasted  with  other  terms ;  (3.) 
because  it  has  been  appealed  to  by  so  many  standard 
writers  for  the  sake  of  illustration.  There  is  no  line 
in  the  Greek  classics,  so  fitted  to  decide  the  question 
before  us.  2 


14 

Having  quoted  this  line,  Turretin  makes  the  following 
remark  on  the  word  baptize :  "  hence  it  means  more 
than  epipolazein,  which  is  lightly  to  float,  and  less  than 
dunein,  which  is  to  go  right  down,  that  is  to  go  to  the 
bottom  unto  destruction.'^  Now  this  assertion  of 
Turretin  is  directly  contrary  to  the  assertion  of  Messrs. 
Cooke  and  Towne,  when  they  quoted  that  line  in  their 
Hints  to  an  Inquirer.  (See  p.  8).  There,  they  say, 
"floating  upon  the  water  is  called  baptism."  But  here, 
Turretin  says  it  is  not  so.  He  says,  baptism  is  more 
than  that.  On  this  point  I  agree  with  him.  And  here 
it  is  that  my  reviewers  are  found  to  be  at  variance  with 
him  whom  they  call  "  the  learned  and  profound  Turretin." 

But  in  addition  to  saying  that  baptize  means  more 
than  floating  on  the  surface,  he  declares  that  it  means 
less  than  sinking  down  to  the  bottom.  The  reader  will 
observe  that  his  expression  is,  it  means  less  than  dunein. 
But  does  he  say  what  dunein  means?  Yes,  he  gives 
the  sense  of  that  Greek  word  in  Latin,  but  his  definition 
of  it,  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne  have  covered  up.  He 
says,  that  dunein  means,  "  to  go  right  down  ;  that  is, 
to  go  to  destruction  at  the  bottom."  His  words  are, — 
dvveiv,  quod  est  pessum  ire,  id  est,  ad  exitium  fundum 
petere.  This  explanation,  they  translate,  as  if  it  meant, 
merely,  to  put  under  the  surface; — "to  overwhelm  or 
submerge."  But  did  they  really  think,  that  it  meant 
no  more  than  this  ?  To  say  so,  would  imply  that  they 
had  very  little  acquaintance  with  the  language  which 
they  were  professing  to  translate.  I  perceive,  that  in 
two  places,  they  quote  with  respect,  the  dictionary  of 
Facciolatus  and  Forcellinus ;  but  in  Bailey's  quarto 
edition  of  that  work  the  very  phrase,  pessum  ire,  stands 
translated  for  them, — "to  go  to  perdition."  And  who 
that  pretends  to  read  Latin  at  all,  does  not  know  that 
the  phrase — ad  exitium  fundum  petere — means,  to  go 
to  the  bottom  unto  destruction  ?  But  in  order  to  make 
Turretin  appear  to  say,  that  baptism,  in  its  proper  sense, 
is  something  less  than  going  under  the  water,  they  force 


15 

that  very  meaning,  not  only  on  the  Greek  word  duneiriy 
but  on  Turretin's  careful  explanation  of  it.  Now,  in 
covering  up  the  sense  of  these  latter  expressions,  which 
form  an  essential  part  of  Turretin's  criticism  on  the 
word  haptizo,  my  reviewers  have  placed  me  under  the 
necessity  of  saying,  that,  either  they  lack  the  requisite 
knowledge  of  Latin  to  translate  this  passage,  or  that 
they  determined  to  avoid  giving  the  full  sense,  or  else, 
that  they  are  chargeable  with  strange  and  gross  inadver- 
tence. As  the  last  is  the  mildest  supposition,  let  us  try 
to  hold  to  that.  Perhaps  they  entrusted  the  translation 
to  some  one,  who  has  not  dealt  faithfully  with  the 
author  or  with  them.  At  any  rate,  the  rendering 
reveals  an  egregious  fault  somewhere. 

But  as  if  wonders  must  come  in  clusters,  the  gentle- 
men refer  to  this  point  again,  on  page  112,  and  say: 
"  We  presume  Mr.  Hague  will  not  stake  his  reputation 
as  a  scholar  on  the  assertion  that  dunai  (dvrui),  by  its 
own  force,  means  to  drown."  If  I  have  any  reputation 
to  risk,  I  may  well  save  it  for  another  occasion ;  for 
here,  I  beg  the  reader  to  observe,  that  the  very  thing 
which  Turretin  exhibits  in  the  quotation,  is  the  fact  that 
dunai  means  to  drown.  He  declares  it  to  be  the  oppo- 
site of  epijpolazein,  which  means  to  swim  on  the  surface^ 
while  dunai  means  to  be  destroyed  at  the  bottom.  Risk 
my  reputation  !  Indeed,  I  need  not,  since  I  may  sum- 
mon others  to  speak.  Hear  Beza,  the  successor  of 
Calvin.  '^  Baptizo  differs  from  dunai,  which,  signifies 
to  plunge  in  the  deep  and  to  drown  ;  as  appears  from 
that  verse  of  an  ancient  oracle  (he  here  cites  the  same 
line),  in  which  these  two  terms  are  distinguished  as 
expressing  different  ideas."  Hear  Casaubon,  formerly 
Greek  Professor  at  Geneva,  in  his  Annotations  on  Matt. 
3:6.  "  This  was  the  rite  of  baptizing,  that  persons 
were  plunged  into  the  water,  which  the  very  word 
baptizein  sufficiently  declares ;  which,  as  it  does  not 
signify  dwew,  to  sink  to  the  bottom  and  perish,  so  doubt- 


16 

less  it  is  not  epipolazein,  to  swim  on  the  surface.  For 
these  three  words,  epipolazein,  baptizein,  and  dunein, 
are  of  different  significations.  Whence  we  understand, 
that  it  was  not  without  reason  that  some  long  ago  insisted 
on  the  immersion  of  the  whole  body  in  the  ceremony  of 
baptism ;  for  they  urge  the  word  BanTc'csiv,  to  baptize." 
Hear,  again,  Witsius,  Professor  of  Theology  atLeyden 
(in  his  Economy  of  the  Covenants,  book  4,  chap.  16, 
4>  13).  "  It  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  native  significa- 
tion of  the  word  baptein  and  baptizein,  is,  to  plunge,  to 
dip.  So  that  it  is,  doubtless,  more  than  epipolazeiiij 
which  is,  to  swim  lightly  on  the  surface ;  but  less  than 
dunai,  which  is,  to  go  down  to  the  bottom  and  be 
destroyed."  Apart  from  these  authorities,  speaking 
directly  to  the  point,  let  the  reader  see  for  himself  the 
fact,  that  in  Exodus  15 :  10,  where  it  is  said  of  the 
hosts  of  Pharaoh,  that  "  they  sanl<:  like  lead  in  the 
mighty  waters,"  the  word  translated  '' sanJc,^'  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  is  this  very  one,  of  which  my  opponents  presume 
that  I  will  not  venture  to  say  that  it  signifies  to  drown. 
The  ancients  applied  the  word  to  the  setting  of  the  sun, 
from  the  idea  that  the  sun  sunk  in  the  ocean.  As  the 
word  means  to  siiilc  doivn,  when  it  is  affirmed  of  a  man, 
or  of  Pharaoh's  army,  represented  as  being  in  the  water, 
it  must  leave  the  mind  with  the  idea  of  drowning,  unless 
something  be  suggested  in  the  context  or  the  nature  of 
the  case,  to  show  that  this  natural  consequence  of  sink- 
ing down  did  not  occur.  But  in  the  line  before  us, 
there  is  an  antithesis,  which  causes  the  sense  of  drown- 
ing, or  perishing  at  the  bottom,  to  be  marked  with  more 
than  ordinary  distinctness.  It  is  true,  if  I  wished  simply 
to  lay  stress  on  the  idea  of  covering  with  water,  as  being 
involved  in  mere  dipping,  I  might  use  the  word  sinlk.  If 
a  man  should  say  to  me,  "  to  dip  means  only  to  wet," 
I  might  reply.  No,  in  order  to  dip  any  thing,  you  must 
sink  it  under  water.  But  if  I  should  form  an  antithesis, 
and  say  of  an  urn  or  any  vessel,  "  I  intended  to  dip  it. 


17 

but  it  sunk  down,"  every  body  would  understand  me  to 
mean,  that  the  thing  went  to  the  bottom  and  remained 
there.  It  is  thus  with  this  Greek  word.  If  a  Greek 
writer  means  to  say  emphatically  that  baptism  involves 
the  idea  of  covering  in  water,  he  will  express  that  idea 
strongly  by  the  word  duno  or  its  compounds.  But  if 
he  intends  to  mark  the  real  and  proper  difference 
between  baptizing  and  sinking  down,  he  will  do  it  just 
as  the  oracle  has  in  this  celebrated  line,  or  as  Turretin 
has  done  in  his  comments  upon  it. 

Any  reader,  who  will  look  closely  at  the  passage, 
may  satisfy  himself,  that  in  illustrating  the  proper  sense 
of  hapiizo,  Turretin's  declaration  amounts  to  this ;  that 
inasmuch  as  baptizo  means  more  than  floating  upon  the 
surface,  and  less  than  lying  at  the  bottom,  its  distinctive 
import  is,  to  immerse  or  dip, — that  is,  to  put  wider  the 
surface.  The  line  which  he  quotes  is  an  admirable  one 
to  exhibit  the  native  force  of  the  word,  because  there 
the  Greeks  themselves  have  set  it  forth,  contrasted  with 
other  terms  in  such  a  way,  as  to  exhibit  the  beauty  of 
an  exact  definition. 

With  this  illustration  of  the  native  and  proper  mean- 
ing of  baptizo,  Turretin  leaves  that  point,  and  proceeds 
to  speak  of  its  figurative  meanings,  or  the  variations  of 
the  word  when  it  is  acted  on  by  figures  of  speech. 
His  remark  at  this  transition  point  is  as  follows:  "But 
because  any  thing  is  usually  merged  and  dipped,  in 
order  that  it  may  be  washed,  and  those  who  are  immersed 
are  usually  cleansed,  it  comes  to  pass,  that,  as  with  the 
Hebrews,  tabal  (which  the  Seventy  translate  baptizo,  m 
2  Kings  5 :  14)  is  taken  for  rahatz,  which  signifies  to 
wash,  in  the  same  passage, — so  with  the  Greeks,  the 
word  baptize  is  made,  by  means  of  a  metalepsis,  to 
signify  washing.  (Mark  7:  4.)  The  Jews,  when  they 
come  from  the  market,  except  they  wash  (baptize)  they 
eat  not."  Now  in  regard  to  this  quotation,  it  is  not 
necessary  for  me  to  stop  here  to  inquire  whether  Mark, 
2* 


18 

in  the  verse  referred  to,  speaks  of  complete  immersions 
among  the  Pharisees,  or  not.  I  believe  that  he  does, 
because  he  says  they  followed  the  superstitious  tradi- 
tions of  the  elders ;  and  there  is  ample  proof  from  the 
rabbies,  that  those  traditions  enjoined  frequent  immer- 
sions. But  that  is  not  now  the  question.  What  I  wish 
to  draw  attention  to  here,  is  this  ;  that  if  those  washings 
were  not  real  immersions,  Turretin  asserts  that  they 
came  to  be  called  baptisms,  only  by  means  of  a  figure  of 
speech,  denominated  metalepsis.  This  word,  it  will  be 
observed,  does  not  appear  in  the  translation  of  Messrs. 
Cooke  and  Towne.  They  have  covered  up  the  sense, 
by  the  word  "  tropically .^^  But  Turretin  is  more  spe- 
cific. He  names  the  trope,  by  which  he  says  baptize 
comes  to  be  used  for  washing.  He  calls  it  a  metalepsis. 
And  what  is  this  ?  Of  all  tropes,  it  expresses  most 
emphatically  a  change  produced  in  the  meaning  of  a 
word.  The  very  name  of  the  trope  itself  signifies  "a 
changeJ^  According  to  him,  those  washings  mentioned 
in  Mark,  came  to  be  called  that,  which,  properly  speak- 
ing, ihey  were  not,  by  means  of  this  figure.  In  rhetoric, 
the  definition  of  a  metalepsis  is,  "  a  continuation  of  a 
trope  in  one  word,  through  a  succession  of  significations '^ 
A  metalepsis  combines  several  tropes  in  one.  And  if, 
in  the  view  of  Turretin,  a  partial  washing  was  called  a 
baptism,  by  means  of  a  metalepsis,  what  two  tropes 
could  be  united  to  produce  this  result?  Why  (1),  there 
is  a  synecdoche,  according  to  which  a  part  is  put  for 
the  whole ;  as  when  we  speak  of  "  the  dip  of  oars,"  of 
the  painter's  "  dipping  his  pencil,"  or  of  "  dipping  a  pen 
in  ink,"  when  in  reality  we  only  mean  the  end  or  point. 
We  speak  thus  of  dipping  the  finger,  when  we  only 
mean  the  end  of  it.  The  same  thing  is  expressed  in 
Luke  16:  24,  without  a  figure,  by  the  phrase,  "that  he 
may  dip  the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water."  Here  the  same 
idea  is  expressed  literally,  which  before  was  expressed 
by  a  synecdoche.     But  in  Turretin's  view,  to  form  a 


19 

metalepsisj  there  must  have  been,  not  only  this  trope,  by 
which  a  part  is  put  for  the  whole,  but  he  describes  a 
metonymy, — that  particular  kind  which  the  rhetoricians 
call  a  metonymy  of  the  effect  or  end.  In  the  use  of  this 
trope,  the  effect  of  a  thing  is  designated  by  the  same 
name  as  the  thing  itself.  The  effect  is  put  for  the  cause. 
Thus,  sweat  is  put  for  labor,  which  causes  it :  "  in  the 
sweat  of  thy  brow  shalt  thou  eat  bread."  Nevertheless, 
sweat  and  labor  are  different  words,  meaning  different 
things.  When  the  sons  of  the  prophets,  while  eating 
their  pottage,  cried  out  to  Elisha,  there  is  death  in  the 
pot,  they  meant  something  which  would  cause  death. 
Nevertheless,  death,  and  a  poisonous  herb,  are  different 
things.     Here  is  a  metonymy. 

In  the  case  of  Naaman,  cited  by  Turretin  (2  Kings 
5 :  14),  we  read  that  the  direction  was  (v.  10),  ''  Go 
wash  thyself  in  Jordan  seven  times.  And  he  went 
down  and  dipped  himself  in  Jordan  seven  times."  As 
washing  or  cleansing  is  the  effect  of  dipping  in  clean 
water,  the  act  of  dipping  may  be  called,  by  a  figure, 
washing  or  cleansing.  But  they  are  different  words, 
properly  meaning  different  things.  The  effect  of  dipping 
in  mire,  would  be  to  defile,  the  effect  of  dipping  in  col- 
oring matter,  to  dye  or  stain.  And  by  a  metonymy,  each 
of  these  may  be  put  for  dipping  or  immersion.  So  too, 
they  may  be  put  for  sprinkhng,  because  washing, 
cleansing,  defiUng,  dyeing  and  staining,  are  often  the 
effects  of  sprinkling.  But  who  would  reason  hence, 
that  the  word  sprinkle  means  to  wash,  cleanse,  defile, 
dye  or  stain  in  any  3iode  ?  No  man,  in  every  day 
affairs,  would  do  so  ;  yet  my  opponents  reason  thus, 
respecting  the  word  translated,  dip  or  immerse.  Dr. 
Johnson  defines  sprinkling,  to  mean  properly,  "  to  scat- 
ter in  drops,"  and  then,  "  to  wash, — to  wet."  These 
latter  significations  come  into  existence  by  means  of  the 
trope  called  metonymy ;  bnt  he  wdio  should  hence  infer 
that  all  these  various  terms  are  properly  equivalent  in 


20 

meaning,  that  washing  or  wetting  in  any  way  is  sprink- 
ling, would  seem  to  be  making  sport  of  the  laws  of 
language,  or,  if  serious,  would  seem  on  common  subjects 
'^to  shock  all  common  sense." 

Turretin  proceeds  to  speak  of  other  cases,  in  which 
rhetorical  figures  affect  the  sense  of  the  word  baptize. 
It  might  certainly  be  expected  that  the  Professor  of 
Theology  at  Geneva,  connected  with  a  church  which 
practised  sprinkling,  would  have  something  to  say  in  its 
behalf.  So  indeed  he  has  ;  but  reader  !  as  I  quoted  his 
authority  on  the  signification  of  the  word,  be  pleased  to 
consider  the  fact,  that  Turretin  does  not  attempt  to 
justify  sprinkling,  as  my  opponents  have  done,  on  the 
ground  of  the  proper  meaning  of  baptize.  His  argu- 
ments are  drawn  from  other  sources.  They  arise  from 
his  speculations  as  a  theologian,  rather  than  from  his 
principles  as  a  philologist.  They  are  such  as  we  hear 
every  day,  but  in  answer  to  which  we  often  plead  that 
proper  sense  of  the  word  which  he  fully  declares. 
After  considering  the  term  itself,  he  makes  a  transition, 
to  consider  baptism  as  a  ceremony ;  and  for  the  ceremo- 
nial form  of  his  church,  he  makes  as  fair  a  defence  as 
can  be  made,  but  it  does  not  rest  on  the  simple  meaning 
of  the  words  used  in  the  commandment  of  Christ.  His 
reasons  are  drawn  from  a  regard  to  convenience,  to 
expediency,  the  difficulty  of  immersion  in  certain  cases, 
— the  fitness  of  sprinkling  to  set  forth  the  idea  of  the 
rite,  which  is  cleansing, — to  exhibit  the  thing  signified, 
namely,  the  communication  of  the  Spirit,  or  the  appli- 
cation of  the  blood  of  Christ.  He  speaks  indeed  of  the 
word  baptize  being  applied  to  what  he  regarded  as  a 
case  of  sprinkling  in  Mark?:  4  ;  but  he  has  declared 
before,  that  in  such  instances,  the  word  is  changed  by  a 
rhetorical  figure,  and  by  means  of  a  metalejjsis,  loses  its 
original  signification.  As  our  authors  say,  however, 
that  they  "  have  not  quoted  him  for  the  sake  of  his 
arguments,"  we  need  not  stop  to  discuss  them  here,  as 


21 

they  will  pass  under  review  in  their  proper  connections. 
Suffice  it  now  to  say,  that  while  Turretin  marks  the 
broad  distinction  that  exists  between  the  simple,  the 
native,  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word,  and  that  ever 
changing  sense  which  is  produced  by  tropes  and  figures, 
he  seeks  to  build  up  some  defence  for  sprinkling  from 
the  latter ;  none  from  the  former.  As  a  classical  scholar 
and  a  critic,  he  develops  the  meaning  of  the  term  with 
clearness  and  truth ;  as  a  Psedobaptist  theologian,  he 
turns  to  its  tropical  or  figurative  changes,  to  raise  some 
support  for  the  practice  of  his  church.  But  in  conced- 
ing to  us  the  former,  he  concedes  in  this  arc^ument,  all 
that  is  vital ;  for,  as  in  the  commission  of  Christ,  all 
acknowledge  that  the  word  baptize  is  not  used  in  a 
figurative  sense,  it  must  of  course  have  there  its  simple 
and  proper  meaning. 

My  reviewers  say,  moreover,  that  they  have  quoted 
Turretin,  to  show  how  little  confidence  they  "  can  place 
in  Mr.  Hague's  citation  of  authorities," (pp.  91,  92). 
And  perceiving,  as  they  did,  that  I  quoted  Turretin's 
authority  as  a  scholar,  on  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and 
that  he  brings  that  out,  chiefly  in  his  criticism  on  the 
Sybilline  verse,  they  add  in  the  same  breath,  "  He  sus- 
tains our  use  of  the  Sybilline  verse  !  "  This  is  coming 
to  the  test.  I  am  sorry,  for  their  salces,  that  they  have 
not  let  this  alone.  As  a  matter  of  policy,  it  would  have 
been  wise.  To  their  repeated  declaration  I  reply, — if 
Turretin  does  not  directly  oppose  their  use  of  the 
Sybilline  verse,  and  contradict  their  assertion,  then  I 
confess  that  I  know  nothing  of  the  subject.  Then  I  am 
altogether  unable  to  understand  his  meaning,  or  to 
translate  those  simple  and  perspicuous  Latin  phrases  in 
which  he  has  expressed  it.  Then  1  am  entirely  incom- 
petent to  the  work  I  have  undertaken,  and  deserve  to 
be  pronounced  so  by  all  parties.  On  this  question,  my 
reviewers  and  I  are  brought  at  once  to  a  definite  issue, 
and  on  this,  will  depend  very  much,  the  estimate  which 


22 

our  intelligent  readers  will  form  of  the  worth  of  our 
assertions  and  citations.  I  am  willing  to  abide  this 
issue.  It  is  a  fortunate  thing  in  a  discussion  to  have 
matters  brought  to  a  point.  Here,  nothing  that  is  said, 
can  be  attributed  to  inadvertence.  My  opponents  have 
repeated  their  declaration,  that  Turretin  sustains  their 
use  of  the  Syhilline  verse.  I  have  taken  this  as  a  sum- 
mons to  re-examine  his  words.  If  it  had  appeared  that 
he  really  does  sustain  them,  I  could  easily  give  him  up, 
without  injury  to  my  cause,  for,  in  the  former  reply,  I 
just  mentioned  his  name  among  those  who  have  given 
immersion  as  the  only  proper  meaning  of  the  word 
baptism.  His  criticism  on  the  Syhilline  verse,  shows 
whether  he  does  so  or  not.  And  if  it  be  true,  that  he 
understands  by  the  word  dunai  in  that  verse,  nothing 
more  than  what  we  mean  by  the  English  word  dip,  if 
his  explanatory  phrase  ''  pessum  ire  "  means  simply,  "  to 
go  under  the  water," — if  the  words,  "  ad  exitium  fundum 
petere,"  denote  merely  a  harmless  submersion,  from 
which  a  person  or  thing  buoyantly  rises,  then  I  have 
not  only  mistaken  Turretin,  but  I  am  so  egregiously  in 
the  wrong,  that  I  should  not  expect  those  who  so  under- 
stand the  matter,  to  confide  at  all  in  my  competency  to 
investigate  any  perplexed  moral  question  whatever.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  this  Syhilline  verse  has  the  meaning 
which  I  assigned  it,  which  Dr.  Langhorne  gave  it  in 
those  quoted  words  which  my  opponents  call  a  "  loose 
translation  "  (in  which  he  is  sustained  by  those  princes 
in  sacred  literature,  Witsius,  Beza  and  Casaubon),  and 
especially,  if  that  be  the  sense  expressed  by  Turretin, 
then,  in  pertinaciously  denying  this,  my  opponents  have 
inflicted  a  serious  injury  on  their  own  standing  as  theo- 
logical teachers,  and  as  competent  interpreters  of  the 
books  which  they  read. 

The  THIRD  ERROR,  which  the  authors  of  the  Rejoin- 
der say  they  find  in  ray  reply  to  them,  is  in  my  claiming 
the  authority  of  Luther  in  favor  of  immersion,  as  being 


23 

the  only  proper  baptism.  They  thus  express  themselves, 
on  page  93  :  "  Mr.  Hague  says,  page  76,  that  Luther 
asserts  immersion  to  be  the  only  proper  mode,  as  the 
only  one  '  answering  to  the  signification  of  baptism,' 
and  that  he  so  rendered  the  Greek  word  in  his  version 
of  the  New  Testament.  Now  this  is  directly  contrary 
to  fact."  Contrary  to  fact !  Well,  gentlemen,  "■  to  the 
law  and  to  the  testimony."  The  question  can  be  easily 
decided.  In  my  Review,  designing  to  be  brief,  I  did 
not  quote  Luther's  words.  Now  I  will  do  it.  Let  the 
old  reformer  speak  for  himself,  and  "  he  that  hath  ears 
to  hear,  let  him  hear."  He  says:  ''The  term  baptism 
is  a  Greek  word ;  it  may  be  rendered  into  Latin  by 
mersio, — when  we  immerse  any  thing  in  water,  that  it 
may  be  entirely  covered  with  water.  And  though  that 
custom  be  quite  abolished  among  the  generality  (for 
neither  do  they  entirely  dip  children,  but  only  sprinkle 
them  with  a  little  water),  nevertheless,  they  ought  to  be 
wholly  immersed,  and  immediately  to  be  drawn  out 
again  ;  for  the  etymology  of  the  word  seems  to  require 
it.  The  Germans  call  baptism  tauff,  from  depth,  which 
they  call  tieff,  in  their  language ;  as  if  it  were  proper 
those  should  be  deeply  immersed,  who  are  baptized. 
And  truly,  if  you  consider  what  baptism  signifies,  you 
shall  see  the  same  thing  required :  for  it  signifies  that 
the  old  man  and  our  native  character  that  is  full  of  sin, 
entirely  of  flesh  and  blood  as  it  is,  may  be  overwhelmed 
by  divine  grace.  The  mode  of  baptism,  therefore,  ought 
to  answer  to  the  signification  oj  baptism,  so  that  it  may 
shoiv  forth  a  sign  that  is  certain  and  full.'' ^  What  will 
our  readers  think  of  this  ?  Truly,  there  is  no  want  of 
perspicuity  here.  "  He  that  runs  may  read,  and  the 
wayfaring  man,  though  a  fool,  need  not  err"  in  under- 
standing such  plain  language  as  this.* 

*  As  some  may  wish  to  compare  the  translation  of  Luther's  words  with  the 
original,  we  give  the  passage  in  this  note  : 

Nomen,  baptismus,  Graecum  est;  Latine  potest  verti,  mersio,  cum  immergi- 
mus  aliquid  in  aquam  ut  totum  tegatur  aqua.    Et  quamvis  ille  mos  jam  aboleverit 


24 

"  To  make  assurance  doubly  sure,"  I  will  here  cite  a 
few  lines,  to  show  how  the  doctors  of  the  Lutheran 
church  understand  Luther's  views  of  this  subject.  I  do 
it  the  more  readily,  because  the  work  from  which  I  shall 
quote  is  easily  accessible  to  those  who  wish  to  consult  it 
for  themselves.  It  is  the  Biblical  Theology  of  two 
learned  and  orthodox  German  divines,  Doctors  Storr 
and  Flatt,  translated  into  English  by  Doctor  Schmucker, 
Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Lutheran  Theological 
Seminary  at  Gettysburg,  Pennsylvania.  It  was  pub- 
lished at  Andover,  in  1826.  In  the  article  on  baptism, 
it  is  said:  "The  disciples  of  our  Lord  could  understand 
his  command  in  no  other  manner,  than  as  enjoining 
immersion  ;  and  that  they  actually  did  understand  it  so, 
is  proved  partly  by  those  passages  of  Scripture  which 
evidently  allude  to  immersion.  Acts  8  :  36,  &ic.  Rom. 
6  :  4.  Col.  2:12.  1  Pet.  3  :  21.  Moreover,  the  old 
custom  of  immersion  was  also  retained  a  long  time  in 
the  Western  church,  at  least  in  the  cases  of  those  who 
were  not  indisposed.  And  even  after  aspersion  had 
been  fully  introduced  in  a  part  of  the  Western  churches, 
there  yet  remained  several,  who  for  some  time  adhered 
to  the  ancient  custom.  Under  these  circumstances,  ii 
is  certainly  to  he  lamented,  that  Luther  was  not  able 

TO  ACCOMPLISH  HIS  WISH  WITH  REGARD  TO  THE  INTRO- 
DUCTION OF  IMMERSION  IN  BAPTISM,  05  he  had  doiie  in 
the  restoration  of  wine  in  the  eucharist^ — (Vol.  II, 
290—291.) 

But  as  Mr.  Cooke,  and  his  younger  friend,  have  pro- 
nounced my  statement  of  the  case  to  be  "  directly 
contrary  to  the  fact,"  perhaps  they  will   say,  also,  that 

apud  plerosque  (nequc  enim  totos  demergunt  pueros.  sed  tantium  paiicula  aqua 
perfundenl)  DEBEBANT  lamen  prorsus  immergi,  et  slatim  retrahi.  Id  enim  ety- 
molo^ia  iinmiiiis  postulare  videtur.  Et  Germani  quoqiie  baplisnnim  Tauff  vocant, 
a  profundi  late,  quain  Tieff  illi  sua  lingua  vocant,  quod  profunde  demergi  conve- 
nial  eos,  qui  bapiizantur.  Et  sane  si  spectes  quid  baptismus  sigaificet,  idem 
requiri  videbis.  Hoc  enim  significat  ut  vetus  homo,  et  nalivitas  nostra  plena 
peccatis,  quae  ex  carne  et  sanguine  constat,  totam  per  divinam  gratiam  demerga- 
tur,  id  quod  copiosius  iiidicabimus.  Debehat  igitur  modus  baptizandi  respondere 
significalioni  baptismi,  et  cerium  ac  plenum  ejus  edarel  signum. — Opera,  torn.  1, 
fol.  72.     Witeberg,  1582 Or  Walched.,  vol.  10,  p.  25,  93. 


26 

these  Lutheran  doctors  and  German  scholars,  do  not 
understand  Luther's  meaning  so  well  as  they  themselves 
do.  Indeed,  they  are  morally  bound  to  make  this  out, 
or  else  to  retract  what  they  have  said.  If  they  conclude 
to  do  the  latter,  we  shall  honor  them  for  their  candor ; 
if  they  attempt  the  former,  we  shall  probably  say  no 
more  on  'this  point,  but  leave  them  "  alone  in  their 
glory.'' 

In  order  to  estimate,  however,  the  degree  of  intelli- 
gence which  my  reviewers  have  brought  to  this  discus- 
sion, let  us  notice  their  explanation  of  the  word  Taufen, 
of  which  we  have  already  heard  Luther  himself  speak. 
They  say,  "  The  German  word  which  Luther  uses  when 
baptism  stands  for  the  religious  rite,  is  not  the  word 
which  means  to  immerse,  if  we  may  place  any  reliance 
upon  the  two  German  lexicons  now  lying  upon  our 
table."  They  then  quote  two  modern  dictionaries, 
which  give  such  meanings  as,  to  christen — to  give  a 
name,  Sic.  What  an  apt  explanation  is  this  of  the  sense 
in  which  Luther  used  the  term  !  We  all  know  that 
since  his  day,  the  German  word  which  he  used  to  trans- 
late baptize,  has  been  applied  in  his  own  country  to  that 
act  of  christening,  which,  he  said,  was  not  baptism. 
The  church  in  Germany  being  established  by  law,  and 
the  practice  of  immersion  being  opposed  by  the  govern- 
ment, the  common  modes  of  expression  have  thus  been 
modified,  and  modern  dictionaries,  we  know,  must  give 
the  modern  and  prevailing  usage.  But  did  any  German 
scholar  ever  maintain  that  this  word,  in  its  own  etymo- 
logical and  native  sense,  the  sense  in  which  Luther  used 
it,  meant  merely  to  christen,  to  initiate  in  a  church,  or 
to  give  a  name  ?  Never.  Such  an  one  knows  that 
tauchen  [to  dip]  and  taufen  were  originally  the  same. 
And  Luther  himself  sets  aside  all  question  here,  by  the 
manner  in  which  he  asserts  the  sense  of  the  word.  How 
absurd  a  thing  it  is,  then,  instead  of  letting  Luther 
3 


26 

himself  explain  a  term  which  he  used  three  centuries 
ago,  to  turn  to  a  modern  dictionary,  which  gives  only 
the  present,  every-day  usage.  Is  this  to  be  called 
exegesis,  criticism — or  what  is  it? 

The  FOURTH  ERROR  which  my  reviewers  assign  to 
me,  is,  in  making  the  statement,  that  1  inserted  in  my 
reply  to  them  all  the  meanings  of  baptize  given  in 
Scapula's  lexicon.  They  say,  ^'But  Scapula  does  give 
Other  meanings."  They  mention  what  these  are;  and 
I  will  now  examine  their  specification. 

(1.)  They  say,  "  He  (Scapula)  tells  us,  that  the 
word  signifies  {tqaloq  yiveadui)  "  to  be  upon  the  sea." 
To  this,  I  reply,  first  of  all,  it  would  be  strange  indeed 
that  Scapula  should  utter  any  such  absurdity,  as  it 
would  be  to  say  that  baptize  means  "  to  be  upon  the 
sea  !  "  Whoever  says  so,  must  be,  I  should  think,  quite 
out  at  sea,  and  "out  of  his  latitude."  The  expression 
here  referred  to  in  Scapula,  is  an  allusion  to  a  passage 
in  Euripides,  cited  to  illustrate  a  certain  application  of 
the  word.  The  meaning  of  the  remark  in  the  lexicon 
is  this,  that  in  Euripides  a  ship  is  said  to  dip  (baptein), 
to  denote  its  condition  on  the  sea.  A  glance  at  the 
sentence  cited  from  Euripides,  will  at  once  explain  the 
whole  matter.  It  occurs  in  Orestes,  line  697,  8.  Me- 
nelaus,  speaking  on  the  subject  of  the  state,  compares 
it  to  a  ship,  and  takes  occasion  to  say,  that  a  vessel  under 
full  sail,  "pressed  by  a  violent  wind,  is  woni  to  dip, 
but  stands  upright  again,  if  one  lessen  the  sail."  If 
this  be  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  we  see  what  must 
have  been  the  meaning  of  the  lexicographer,  in  referring 
to  it.  And  if  the  reader  wishes  the  best  authority  in 
the  world,  to  show  that  I  have  not  mistaken  the  sense, 
let  him  refer  to  Major's  school  edition  of  Euripides,  with 
Porson's  notes  ;  and  there  he  will  see  a  note  to  the  line, 
in  which  the  word  baptein  is  rendered,  "  is  wont  to  dipP'' 
Whether  my  reviewers  will  admit  that  Porson  knew  any 
thing  about  this  matter,  I  cannot  say  ;  but  even  if  they 


27 

should  not,  I  presume  they  will  not  entirely  destroy  bis 
authority  touching  the  sense  of  a  line  in  Euripides.* 

(2.)  They  say,  that  Scapula  declares  that  Uutiko 
means,  *'  to  draw  up — to  fill  for  drawing  up."  Here, 
again,  as  in  the  case  just  mentioned,  Scapula,  having 
given  the  definitions  of  the  word,  is  citing  passages  to 
illustrate  them.  1  professed  to  give  his  definitions,  not 
his  illustrations.  Greek  literature  is  full  of  such  illus- 
trations. I  merely  wished  to  exhibit  the  authority  of 
the  lexicon  on  the  meaning  of  the  term.  The  remark 
of  Scapula  is,  that  the  commentator  or  scholiast  on 
Nicander,  in  a  certain  instance,  explains  hapto  as  being 
put  for  draw  up,  or  fill  for  drawing  up.  This  is  one  of 
those  comments,  which  may  well  be  called  "  extremely 
true ;"  a  thing  which  any  reader  might  have  perceived, 
without  having  a  scholiast  to  tell  him.  If  I  should  say 
to  a  servant.  Go,  take  your  pitcher,  dip  it  in  the  brook, 
and  bring  it  here, — or.  Go,  dip  some  water  from  the 
spring, — he  would  not  need  to  be  informed  that  the 
word  dip  stands  for  "  draw,"  or  '•  fill  for  drawing  up." 
But  if  I  should  gravely  give  him  this  information,  and 
add,  that  hence,  the  words  dip,  draw,  and  fill,  were  all 
one  in  sense, — exactly  synonymous, — it  is  very  likely 
that  he  would  not  believe  it.  There  are  very  few, 
whose  native  tongue  is  English,  who  would  not  know 
better.  Either  word  might  be  used,  but  each  has  a 
distinct  meaning.  Now,  this  is  just  the  case,  in  regard 
to  the  passage  referred  to  in  Nicander.  The  phrase  is, 
avri]v  cxlu  (iume — dip  the  sea-water  itself.  There  is  a 
similar  case  in  Euripides  (Hec.  607)  :  "  But  go,  you 
old  maid-servant,  take  a  vessel,  and  dipping  it  (Buiijuau) 

*   Kac:  vavg  ydig  evradsiaa  ngog  Biav  Tiodt 

iSonpev,  tcrrri  d'  uvdig  \v  yu).a  noda. —  Orestes,  697. 

In  Potter's  Euripides,  the  idea  is  given  in  a  free  translation,  thus  : 

The  gallant  hark  that  too  much  swells  her  sails, 
Oft  IS  o'erset ;  but  let  her  pride  be  lowered, 
She  rides  secure,  and  glories  in  the  gale. 


28 

bring  some  sea-water  hither."  On  this,  the  scholiast 
remarks,  that  BuTiTetv  stands  for,  to  '^  let  down  into  the 
water,  or  any  liquid.''^  This  remark  of  the  scholiast,  like 
the  other,  is  "  extremely  true."  Every  body  knows 
that  dij)ping  implies  to  let  down  into  the  water,  and  to 
draw  up  out  of  it.  But  does  it  hence  follow,  that  the 
proper  signification  of  the  word  dip,  is  to  let  down,  or  to 
draw  up,  simply, — either  one,  or  the  other,  or  both, 
without  involving  the  idea  of  putting  a  thing  into  a 
liquid  ?  By  no  means.  Why  did  not  my  reviewers 
refer  their  English  readers  to  Donnegan's  Lexicon,  with 
English  definitions,  that  they  might  see  for  themselves? 
There  the  matter  is  explained  in  a  word,  thus :  BuTtico, 
to  draw  out  water  by  dipping  a  vessel  into  it,  to  fill  into 
another  vessel.  Bu7tti';o),  to  dip  in  a  vessel  and  draw. 
Here,  then,  the  reader  sees,  that  when  Scapula  refers  to 
the  remark  of  the  scholiast,  he  gives  no  new  meaning  to 
the  word. 

(3.)  The  third  instance  of  omitting  a  meaning  is  thus 
expressed :  "  He  (Scapula)  also  gives  examples  under 
the  sense  of  to  tinge  (which  it  is  strange  Mr.  Hague  did 
not  see),  to  wit,  that  of  painting  or  staining  the  hair, 
and  pointing  a  spear  with  poison, — things  not  done  by 
immersion."  To  this  I  reply,  that  I  noticed  these 
things,  but  noticed  also,  that  Scapula  sets  them  down 
as  things  which  are  done  by  immersion,  inasmuch  as 
these  examples  are  brought  to  support  the  definition 
which  I  quoted,  namely,  "  to  dye,  which  is  done  by 
immersing."  Any  one  may  see  this  for  himself,  if  he  will 
take  the  trouble  to  look  at  the  work.  To  illustrate  the 
action  intended,  Scapula  quotes  under  the  same  defini- 
tion, Luke  16:  24,  where  it  is  said,  "  that  he  may  dip 
(intingat)  the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water."  How,  then, 
can  it  be  said  that  I  omitted  a  meaning?  The  expres- 
sion betrays,  to  say  the  least,  great  inattention  to  facts. 
I  should  not  have  thought  of  occupying  so  much  space 
in  exhibiting  the  sense  given  in  this  lexicon  ;   but  since 


29 

my  reviewers  have  questioned  my  general  statements,  I 
have  cheerfully  embraced  the  opportunity  to  go  into 
particulars.  In  this  way,  undoubtedly,  my  readers  will 
in  the  end  be  more  thoroughly  satisfied  that  I  have  read 
the  lexicons  correctly,  and  that  my  testimony  is  sure. 
They  will  be  pleased  to  observe,  however,  that  in  order 
to  give  all  an  opportunity  to  judge  for  themselves,  I 
quoted  an  English  classical  Greek  lexicon,  which  Pro- 
fessor Stuart  quotes  as  a  standard  work,  which  is  in  a 
small  compass  comparatively,  and  is  easily  accessible. 
It  is  Donnegan's  ;  and  as  my  reviewers  have  not 
attempted  to  tarnish  my  reports  of  that,  by  one  breath 
of  suspicion,  I  would  ask  every  doubtful  inquirer  to 
consult  it  for  himself. 

Before  leaving  this  point,  I  must  observe,  further,  that 
the  gentlemen  have  misquoted  me,  in  saying  that  I 
praised  Scapula  as  "  one  of  the  most  celebrated  lexicog- 
raphers in  Europe."  This  is  a  mistake.  I  praised  the 
lexicon — not  him  whose  name  it  bears ;  for  while  the 
book  itself  is  a  standard  work,  it  derives  its  value  from 
the  labors  of  Stephanus,  whose  production  Scapula 
unjustly  appropriated  to  himself.  If  my  reviewers  w^ere 
aware  of  this  fact,  they  did  a  vesy  great  wrong  in  mis- 
quoting me  :   if  not,  the  inadvertence  is  excusable. 

The  FIFTH  ERROR  which  my  reviewers  assign  to  me, 
is,  in  saying  that  they  "seem  dissatisfied  with  the  mod- 
erate statements  of  Dr.  Woods  and  Professor  Stuart." 
They  call  this  "  a  fabrication  of-  Mr.  Hague's,  entire," 
and  remark,  "  we  did  say,  that  some  of  our  writers  on 
the  subject,  from  a  desire  to  show  a  generous  and  liberal 
spirit,  have  made  unwarrantable  concessions.  The 
names  of  Messrs.  Stuart  and  Woods,  however,  are  not 
mentioned  within  many  pages  of  this  sentence  ;  nor  are 
they  here  referred  to  by  even  the  remotest  implication,''^ 

Nevertheless,  I  could  not  avoid  the  impression,  on 
reading  the  sentence  on  "  unwarrantable  concessions," 
that  these  distinguished  writers  were  referred  to  by  less 
3* 


30 

than  a  remote  implication.  I  have  long  known  that 
they  have  been  blamed  in  some  quarters  for  allowing  so 
much  to  the  Baptists ;  and  if  any  other  writers  on  the 
same  side  of  the  question  have  made  more  liberal  con- 
cessions than  Professor  Stuart,  I  should  be  glad  to 
know  who  they  are.  Why  did  not  the  gentlemen  tell 
■us  to  whom  they  did  refer  ?  Published  writings  are 
public  property,  and  there  could  have  been  no  indelicacy 
in  designating  them.  A  little  frankness,  on  their  part, 
would  have  been  better  than  a  naked  censure.  The 
first  impression  of  many  minds  will  doubtless  be,  that 
the  sentence  quoted  above  was  aimed  at  Professor 
Stuart.  He  is  not  far  from  us — he  has  been  chief 
among  those  who  have  led  our  young  ministers  to  avail 
themselves  of  the  aids  of  German  learning,  to  the  intro- 
duction of  which  my  reviewers  are  so  bitterly  opposed* 
— his  writings  are  well  known  in  this  community,  and 
they  exhibit  a  strong  contrast  to  those  which  the  Rev. 
Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne  have  presented  to  us.  For 
instance,  Professor  Stuart  says,  after  an  investigation  of 
passages,  "  On  the  whole,  however,  the  probability 
seems  to  be  in  favor  of  the  idea  of  immersion,  when  we 
argue  merely  from  the  force  of  the  words  or  expressions, 
in  themselves  considered"! — and  then  again,  after 
objecting  to  a  strict  adherence  to  immersion,  says,  "On 
the  other  hand,  to  maintain  that  sprinkling  or  affusion  is 
the  only  mode  of  baptism,  or  the  only  proper  mode, 
seems  to  me  to  partake  of  the  like  sectarian  spirit."{ 
But  my  reviewers  say,  they  "  do  not  allow  that  to 
immerse  is  the  primary  signification  of  these  terms,"<§> 
declare  that  "  immersion  is  one  instance  of  departure 
from  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel,"  and  that,  "if  by 
being  right  is  meant  the  following  of  the  scriptural  mode, 
one,  by  being  immersed,  ivill  be  sure  to  be  ivrong."  The 
contrast  is  very  marked  ;  yet,  if  the  gentlemen  say  they 
had  no  reference  to  the  liberal  statements  of  Professor 

*  Rejoinder,  p.  123.      f  Bib.  Kepos.,  Vol.  UI,  p.  313.      :  lb.,  373.       §  Hint3,  p.  7. 


31 

Stuart,  I  will  not  at  all  insist  on  saying  that  they 
had,  but  am  glad  to  find  that  those  statements  are  to 
remain  nnimpiigned,  and  that  some  others  liave 
made  concessions  more  ''unwarrantable"  than  his. 
Of  course,  with  these  latter  writers,  we  should  have 
little  or  no  occasion  for  dispute. 

The  SIXTH  ERROR  on  our  reviewers'  list  is  thus 
stated.  "  On  page  80,^  Mr.  Hague  says,  '  the  writer 
speaks  as  if  the  Jews  knew  nothing  of  religious 
immersions;'  and  then  proceeds  to  tell  us,  as  if  he 
considered  us  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  in  legal 
purifications  '  the  people  sometimes  dipped  them- 
selves.' Let  the  reader  turn  back  to  page  9,  and  he 
will  find  that  we  recognize  the  fact  of  which  Mr. 
Hague  so  gravely  informs  us." 

We  turn  to  page  9,  and  all  the  recognition  of  the 
fact  that  we  find  there  is  in  these  words.  "In  Heb. 
9 :  10,  Paul  calls  the  different  ceremonial  washings 
done  in  the  tabernacle  service,  baptisms.  Among 
them  all,  there  is  not  an  instance  of  immersion  by 
the  priests.  In  all  cases  where  the  subjects  bathed, 
there  was  no  official  administration."  If  these  words 
positively  "recognize  the  fact,"  that  immersions 
were  in  use  among  the  Jews  as  i^eligioiis  services,  I 
trust  the  reader  will  see  some  ground  for  my  saying 
that  I  did  not  so  understand  them.  I  supposed  them 
to  mean,  that  no  immersions  were  considered  sacred, 
but  were  regarded  as  common  acts,  like  those  of 
bathing  among  ourselves.  This  impression  was 
confirmed  by  the  assertions  on  page  45,  where  they 
say  of  the  apostles,  "  they  had  been  educated  to  i^egard 
sjprinkling  as  sufficient  for  ceremonkd  'purification^ 
and  from  early  childhood  had  seen  the  leper,  and 
the  Levites,  and  indeed  the  vessels  of  the  temple, 
cleansed  by  sprinkling."  Again,  "if  the  influence 
of  their  Jewish  education  was  not  counteracted  by 
some  command  of  Christ,  they  baptized  unquestion- 
ably by   pouring  or  sprinkling."     If,  however,  our 

*  Pase  31  of  Gould,  Kendall  &  Lincoln's  edition. 


32 

authors  intended  to  ^'recognize  the  fact "  that  reZi- 
gioiis  immersions  were  practised  by  the  Jews,  I  am 
sorry  that  I  did  not  fully  apprehend  the  force  of 
their  expressions;  for  I  should  wish  their  readers  to 
understand  this  recognition  clearly.  I  am  glad, 
therefore,  that  they  have  now  taken  occasion  to  be 
more  explicit  in  asserting  that  such  immersions  were 
habitual  with  that  people.  If  they  should  speak  of 
this  point  again,  I  trust  they  will  not  forget  that  the 
Jewish  rule,  as  expressed  by  Maimonides  (the  Rabbi 
whom  the  Jews  so  much  revered  that  they  used  to 
call  him  the  lamp  of  Israel),  runs  thus  :  "  Whereso- 
ever, in  the  law,  washing  of  flesh  or  of  clothes  is 
mentioned,  it  means  nothing  else  than  the  dipping  of 
the  whole  body  in  water;  for  if  any  man  wash 
himself  all  over,  except  the  top  of  his  little  finger,  he 
is  still  in  his  uncleanness."^ 

The  SEVENTH  ERROR,  as  they  call  it,  is  worthy  of 
particular  attention.  It  is  expressed  as  follows: 
"On  page  71,  Mr.  Hague  says,  'The  principle  that 
baptizo,  by  its  oivn  force^  determines  the  way  of 
applying  water,  is  clearly  set  forth  by  those  three 
great  lexicographers  of  the  New  Testament,  Schleus- 
ner,  Wahl,  and  Bretschneider.'  Astonishing ! 
Schleusner  defines  baptizo,  1,  to  immerse  in  water; 
2,  to  wash,  sprinkle,  or  cleanse  with  water  (abluo, 
lavo,  aqua  purgo) ;  3,  to  baptize ;  4,  to  pour  out 
largely  (profundo  largiter,  &c.)  Only  one  .of 
Schleusner' s  definitions  restricts  the  meaning  to 
immersion.  Three  of  them  denote  the  application  of 
the  fluid  by  afl'usion.  Wahl  defines  baptizo,  first, 
to  wash,  to  perform  abliUion,  to  cleanse.  Bret- 
schneider's  lexicon  gives  no  ground  for  Mr.  Hague's 
assertion,  for  he  defines  baptize,  to  wash,  to  perform 
ablution,  &c.  We  have  never  yet  seen  a  lexicon 
which  sustains  Mr.  Hague's  position." 

I  said  that  this  paragraph  is  worthy  of  special 
attention  ;  for  it  contains  a  key  to  the  mystery  which 

*  Lidnfovit  on  Matt.  III. 


33 

has  puzzled  some  inquiring  minds.  The  question 
before  these  has  been, — how  is  it,  that  those  who  are 
regarded  as  honest  and  Christian  men,  and  who 
profess  to  be  able  to  read  the  lexicons,  should  differ 
outright  in  their  reports  of  what  the  lexicons  say? 
I  answer,  that  in  this  last  quotation,  we  have  the 
means  of  explaining  it.  Let  the  reader  attend,  and 
he  will  mark  the  principle  which  will  enable  him  to 
unravel  many  such  difficulties.  My  statement  is, 
that  Schleusner  develops  "  the  principle,  that  bapti- 
zo,  by  its  own  force,  determines  the  way  of  applying 
water."  This,  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne  explicitly 
deny.  In  answering  them  on  this  point,  I  will  do 
two  things.  First,  I  will  quote  an  important  expla- 
nation of  Schleusner,  which  they  have  omitted ;  and 
secondly,  exhibit  the  process  by  which  they  make 
Schleusner  say  that  baptize  means  to  sprinkle. 

Schleusner's  definition  runs  thus :  '^  Baptizo,  1, 
PROPERLY,  to  immerse  and  dip  in,  to  merge  in  water. 
It  answers  to  the  Hebrew  word  tabal.  Now,  because, 
not  unfrequently,  something  is  wont  to  be  immersed 
and  dipped  into  the  water,  so  that  it  may  be  washed, 
HENCE,  2,  it  denotes  to  perform  ablution,  to  wash,  to 
cleanse  with  water. "^  Here  is  a  very  important 
remark.  But  this  explanatory  and  restrictive  sen- 
tence, which  gives  the  i^easons  why  wash  and  cleanse 
are  subjoined  to  immerse,  as  meanings  of  baptize, 
was  unseen  by  our  authors,  or  else  they  regarded  it 
as  signifying  just  nothing  at  all.  Otherwise,  why 
did  they  omit  it?  It  forms  a  part  of  the  sentence 
from  which  they  quoted.  Schleusner  says,  first,  that 
the  word  means  properly  to  immerse,  and  then  that  it 
is  used  to  denote  washing,  because  immersion  is  a 
common  mode  of  washing.  But  is  this  the  same  as 
to  say,  that  it  means  to  wash  in  any  mode?  No. 
It  is  saying  just  the  reverse.     It  restricts  the  sense  of 

*  We  give  Schleusner's  definition  in  his  own  Latin  words:  BanTl^Ci),  1,  pro- 
prie,  immergo  ae  inlingo,  in  aquam  inergo.  Respondit  hebraico  ^^J^.  Jam 
quia  hand  rare  aliquid  imrnergi  ae  intingiin  aquam  solet  ut  lavetur,  hunc,  2,  abluo, 
lavOj  aqua  purgo,  notat. 


34 

washing  to  those  cases  where  immersion  is  the  mode. 
It  would  have  been  difficult  for  Schleusner  to  express 
himself  more  guardedly.  Having  given  the  proper 
meaning  of  the  word,  his  restrictive  clause  was 
designed  to  show,  that  though  it  may  denote  wash- 
ing, it  does,  '-by  its  own  force,  determine  the  way 
of  applying  water."  Yet  this  clause  our  authors 
omit,  and  tell  their  readers  that  Schleusner  says  the 
word  means  to  wash  in  any  mode!  Now  I  ask  the 
reader,  with  his  eye  on  that  clause,  to  say  for  him- 
self, what  shall  be  thought  of  the  accuracy  of  my 
reviewers,  as  reporters  of  the  lexicons  ? 

(2.)  But  this  is  not  all.  We  must  observe  the 
process  by  which  they  make  Schleusner  say  that 
baptize  means  to  sprinkle.  They  do  it  thus.  That 
Latin  word,  'Mavo,"  which  they  quote  as  one  of  his 
definitions,  and  which  properly  means  to  wash  or 
lave,  they  translate,  ''  to  sprinkle."  But  that  Latin 
word  is  found  also  in  the  clause  which  they  have 
omitted,  and  if  their  translation  be  correct,  the  whole 
sentence  will  read  thus  :  "  Now,  because,  not  unfre- 
quently,  a  thing  is  wont  to  be  immersed  or  dipped 
into  water,  so  that  it  may  be  sprinkled,  hence,  it 
means,  2,  to  perform  ablution,  sprinkle,  or  cleanse 
with  water."  What  an  absurdity  to  attribute  to  the 
author  of  a  lexicon,  to  say  that  a  thing  is  wont  to  be 
dipped  into  water,  in  order  to  be  sprinkled !  Alas, 
poor  Schleusner  !  thou  art  to  be  pitied,  if  thou 
couldst  speak  thus,  and  if  not,  hard  is  thy  lot  to  have 
it  spoken  in  thy  name  !  But  the  reader  sees  at  once 
that  no  sane  lexicographer  ever  uttered  such  a  thing. 
And  yet,  one  of  two  conclusions  is  unavoidable; 
either  Schleusner  did  say  it,  or  else  my  revieivers  have 
mistranslated  him. 

But  again,  on  what  ground  do  they  translate  lavo 
(which  means,  wash),  by  the  word  sprinkle?  The 
context  does  not  demand  it.  No,  it  is  directly  against 
it.  Will  they  say  that  sprinkling  is  a  mode  of  wash- 
ing,  and   therefore,    inasmuch   as  baptism   denotes 


35 

washing,  it  must  also  mean  sprinkling?  Yes,  this 
is  the  smn  and  substance  of  their  reasoning.  And 
what  is  it  worth  ?  It  proves  too  much,  and  therefore 
proves  nothing.  It  would  prove  that  to  immerse 
means  to  sprinkle,  and  that  to  sprinkle  means  to 
immerse.  liCt  us  state  the  several  cases  more 
formally : 

1.  Baptism  means  washing; 
Sprinkling  is  a  mode  of  washing; 
Therefore,  baptism  means  sprinkling. 

But  then  it  is  evident,  also,  that  immersion  denotes 
washing.  My  reviewers  themselves  say,  on  page  34 
of  their  "Hints  to  an  Inquirer,*'  ^^we  object  to  im- 
mersion, because  it  is  a  literal  washing."  But  when 
they  open  the  lexicons  which  call  baptism  washing, 
they  translate  the  word  by  sprinkling !  and  then 
proceed  to  say,  that  tlie  lexicons  are  on  their  side ! 
Doubtless,  it  is  easy  to  bring  all  the  authors  in  the 
world  on  their  side,  at  this  rate !  In  this  way,  they 
could  show  that  even  now,  I  am  myself  an  advocate 
of  their  views,  without  being  aware  of  it ;  for  by  this 
process,  they  could  make  it  out,  that  the  very  word 
immerse  means  to  sprinkle,  as  will  appear  in  a 
second  formulary  like  the  first : 

2.  Immersion  is  washing; 
Sprinkling  is  washing; 
Therefore,  immersion  is  sprinkling. 

So,  too,  it  may  be  said  again : 

3.  Sprinkling  means  cleansing; 
Immersion  means  cleansing; 
Therefore,  sprinkling  means  immersion. 

Such  is  the  amount  of  discrimination,  of  order  and 
arrangement  of  meanings,  which  the  process  of  our 
authors  involves.  Who  that  has  one  particle  of 
mental  independence,  would  not  say  within  himself, 
by  whatever  names  such  interpretation  may  be  sus- 
tained, I  trample  it  under  foot  as  false  reasoning,  I 
abjure  it  as  devoid  of  the  least  glimmering  of  sound 
sense,  justness  or  consistency. 


36 

In  Johnson's  dictionary,  we  find  that  wet,  and 
wash,  are  given  among  the  definitions  of  sprinkle. 
Following  in  the  path  of  our  authors  as  safe  guides, 
we  would  be  led  to  such  positions  as  these : 

4.  Sprinkling  means  wetting; 
Immersion  means  wetting; 
Therefore,  sprinkling  means  immersion. 

Or, 

5.  Sprinkling  means  washing; 
Immersion  means  washing; 
Therefore,  sprinkling  means  immersion. 

So  we  might  form  other  cases,  to  show  that  im- 
mersion and  sprinkling  are  identical,  for  sprinkle  is 
sometimes  defined,  to  dye,  color,  or  stain.  It  is  true, 
Dr.  Johnson  does  not  say  that  sprinkle  means  to  wet 
or  wash  in  any  onode^  but  only  in  a  certain  way. 
He  defines  the  'proper  meaning  of  the  word  to  be, 
"to  scatter  in  drops  or  small  masses."  These  other 
meanings  come  by  implication,  or  by  figures  of 
speech.  But  according  to  our  authors,  this  last  par- 
ticular is  unworthy  of  notice,  for  "it  is. enough  to 
say,  that  other  meanings  are  other  meanings,  come 
from  what  source  they  may."  (p.  97.)  As  the 
word  sprinkle,  therefore,  means  wet,  wash,  color, 
and  stain,  and  as  these  acts  ^nay  be  performed  in 
various  modes,  how  obvious  it  is,  that,  according  to 
Johnson  and  other  lexicographers,  sprinkling  means, 
the  application  of  water  in  any  ivay !  I  know  that 
my  reviewers  will  recoil  from  this  conclusion ;  but 
I  know,  also,  that  they  cannot  avoid  it,  without 
retracting  the  reasoning  by  which  they  make  it  out, 
that  baptize  means  to  sprinkle.  If  the  reader  will 
look  closely  at  the  subject,  he  may  see  for  himself, 
that  they  must  adopt  this  absurdity,  or  abandon 
their  position.  They  have  their  choice ;  but  if  they 
choose  to  continue  on  the  ground  where  they  are,  the 
sharp  point  of  this  conclusion  will  constantly  pierce 
them,  and  render  them  uneasy.  There  is  only  one 
way  of  escape. 


37 

The  remarks  which  apply  to  the  case  of  Schleus- 
ner,  apply  equally  to  the  other  lexicographers  men- 
tioned in  this  connection.  They  all  give  immersion 
as  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word,  and  by  that,  all 
the  applications  of  the  word  are  modified  and  limited. 
They  may  cite  passages  where  the  word  suggests 
the  means  of  immersion,  or  the  effect  of  it,  but  they 
give  no  meaning  mconsistent  with  that  primary  idea. 
If  I  should  say  of  a  man,  that  the  pouring  forth  of 
waters  from  a  bursting  reservoir  immersed  or  over- 
whelmed him,  would  any  sensible  child  suppose  that 
I  intended  to  say  that  to  immerse  means  to  pourl 
Yet  there  would  be  a  case  of  immersion  by  pouring. 
The  pouring,  however,  would  not  be  the  immersion, 
but  the  thing  which  produced  it.  And  it  might  be 
truly  said,  the  waters  poured  forth  upon  the  man,  or 
they  overwhelmed  him,  or  covered  him,  or  immersed 
him;  all  these  words  would  harmonize  in  their 
application  to  the  case,  though  each  has  its  ^wn 
proper  meaning.  Such  cases  are  pointed  out  by  the 
lexicographers,  when  they  cite  passages  wherein  the 
word  baptizo  stands  for  pouring  forth  largely  (pro- 
fundo  largiter,  &c.),  so  as  to  cover  any  object,  to 
inundate  or  overwhelm.  Like  instances  occur  in 
English  writers.  Thus,  Burke  says,  that  the  Baby- 
lonian and  Assyrian  empires  "  poured  out  seas  of 
blood."  That  was  a  pouring  which  merged  and 
buried  nations, — which  administered  to  them  "a 
baptism  of  blood."  Yet,  because  in  certain  passages 
to  ''  pour  forth"  may  be  interchanged  with  merge  or 
bury,  who  would  say  that  each  word  properly  has 
the  same  meaning?  In  other  passages  they  may 
develop  their  own  force,  and  be  set  in  direct  contrast, 
as  they  are  in  that  sentence  of  Leviticus  4 :  6,  7, 
which  I  have  before  quoted.  Unless  a  man  under- 
stand the  proper  sense  of  words,  how  is  it  possible 
that  he  should  see  the  true  meaning  of  an  author,  or 
at  all  apprehend  the  beauty  and  strength  of  his 
expressions  7 


38 

In  supporting  their  claim  to  the  lexicons,  Messrs. 
Cooke  and  Towne  observe,  "  Bretschneider's  lexicon 
gives  no  ground  for  Mr.  Hague's  assertion,  for  he 
defines  baptize,  to  wash,  to  perform  ablution,  &c." 
The  fallacy  of  such  remarks  is  now  sufficiently 
apparent;  but  how  strikingly  it  appears  in  the  case 
of  Bretschneider !  He  seems  to  desire  particularly 
not  to  be  misunderstood,  for  he  says,  "in  the  New 
Testament,  the  ivord  is  not  nsed^  except  in  relation  to 
that  appointed  and  sacred  siihnersion^  which  the 
Jews  practised  in  order  to  pledge  one  to  a  reforma- 
tion of  life,  or  to  take  away  the  guilt  of  his  sins."=^ 
As  to  Wahl,  in  his  lexicon  of  the  New  Testament 
which  I  have  consulted,  he  gives  to  bajjio^  the  root, 
no  meaning,  except  to  dip  in,  to  immerse.  He  does 
not  even  mention  to  dye, — the  sense  which  Dr.  Rob- 
inson says  comes  by  implication,  in  Rev.  19:  13; 
because  Wahl  saw,  that  when  we  are  told  of  a 
''garment  dipped  in  blood,"  a  child  will  know  that 
dyeing  or  coloring  is  a  consequence  im.plied,  without 
a  lexicon  to  announce  it.  Under  baptizo,  Wahl  gives 
no  meaning  or  example,  which  is  not  in  consistency 
with  the  proper  sense  of  immersion.  But  strange  to 
tell,  m}^  reviewers  utter  two  things  most  inconsistent 
with  each  other;  for  they  say,  first,  "we  object  to 
immersion,  because  it  is  a  literal  washing,"  and  then, 
because  Wahl  says,  baptize  denotes  washing,  they 
exclaim, — ivell^  then^  that  expresses  our  viev;,  ex- 
actly ! 

The  reader  will  see,  that  in  replying  to  the  re- 
marks which  occur  under  the  head  of  Error  7,  I 
have  effectually  answered  those  which  aire  made 
under  the  heads.  Error  8,  9  and  10.  They  repeat 
what  has  been  said  before,  and  our  authors  get  other 
lexicographers  on  their  side,  in  the  same  way  they 
did   Schleusner,    Wahl   and    Bretschneider.      It   is 

*In  N.  T.  non  dicitur  nisi  de  submersione  solenni  et  sacra,  que  utebantur 
Judaei,  ut  vel  ad  vitae  eraendationem  aliquem  obstringerent,  vel  peccalorum  eiua 
culpam  delerent. 


39 

curious  to  observe,  however,  that,  as  if  sorely  pressed 
for  authorities,  in  this  case  where  the  appeal  is  to 
Greek  lexicographers,  my  reviewers  quote  Buck, 
one  of  their  own  denomination,  and  author  of  an 
English  theological  dictionary.  Did  they  consider 
this  quite  apposite?  I  might  as  well  have  quoted 
the  Biblical  Cyclopaedia  of  Jones  (which  is  now 
before  me,  on  the  same  shelf  with  Buck's  dictionary), 
and  which  says,  "Many  writers  of  respectability 
maintain  that  the  Greek  verb  baptizo^  as  well  as  its 
Hebrew  synonym,  sometimes  denotes  sprinkling ; 
but  the  various  passages  to  which  they  appeal,  will 
lead  every  candid  mind  to  a  different  conclusion." 
But  it  is  not  in  place  here  to  quote  English  diction- 
aries. When  the  point  in  question  is  the  lexicogra- 
phy of  a  Greek  word,  we  must  appeal  to  Greek 
lexicons.  My  reviewers,  however,  have  quoted  also 
Latin  dictionaries,  in  such  a  connection,  as  would 
lead  one  who  had  never  seen  them,  to  suppose  they 
were  Greek  lexicons.  Thus,  they  mention  the 
names  of  Facciolatus  and  Forcellinus,  two  learned 
Italians,  who  composed  a  large  Latin  dictionary,  in 
their  list  of  lexicographers.  And  although  these 
writers  were  members  of  the  Romish  church,  which 
practises  sprinkling  or  pouring,  yet  they  do  not  give 
either  of  these,  as  meanings  of  the  Greek  word. 
They  define  it  simply,  immerse,  wash  ;  and  if,  as  we 
have  seen,  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne  "  object  to 
immersion,  because  it  is  a  literal  washing^^  (p.  34), 
on  what  ground  can  they  claim  the  authority  of 
these  Italians  in  their  favor?  As  the  name  of  the 
first  of  these  authors  is  wrongly  spelt,  each  time  that 
it  is  mentioned,  that  fact  suggests  a  doubt  whether 
my  reviewers  have  very  carefully  read  them. 

In  the  closing  paragraph  on  the  subject  of  errors, 
the  gentlemen  present  a  list  of  lexicographers,  whom 
they  claim  as  on  their  side,  touching  the  meaning  of 
this  Greek  word.  I  doubt  whether  such  a  classifica- 
tion of  names  was  ever  published  before,  or  ever 


40 

shall  be  again.  We  see  the  names  of  Greek  lexicog- 
raphers, known  throughout  the  world,  associated 
with  those  of  compilers  of  Latin  dictionaries,  and  of 
persons  scarcely  known  at  all.  We  happened  to 
show  the  list  to  the  President  of  a  literary  institution, 
who  is  much  interested  in  the  subject  of  lexicogra- 
phy. He  was  both  astonished  and  amused,  and 
inquired,  •'  Have  not  Ainsworth  and  Cole  got  out  of 
their  latitude?  Did  Facciolatus  and  Forcellinus 
write  a  Greek  lexicon  ?  Did  these  men's  names  ever 
chance  to  come  in  juxtaposition  before  ?  1  think 
not."  What  an  association  of  a?/^/ion7ie5 .'  Schleus- 
ner,  Stephanus,  Ainsworth,  Cole,  Passow,  Gross  !  ! 
This  sort  of  order,  or  rather  disovder,  looks  like 
chance-work;  it  bears  not  the  marks  of  intelligent 
design. 

The  paragraph  closes  with  the  name  of  Schreve- 
lius,  Avhom  it  designates,  ''that  great  master  and 
critic  of  the  Greek  tongue."  Alluding  to  this  sen- 
tence, a  friend  remarked  to  me,  with  some  emphasis, 
''  Here  we  have  a  key  to  the  literary  estimates  of 
these  gentlemen."  Compared  with  some  others 
already  mentioned,  "Schrevelius  is  notorious  as  a 
poor  lexicographer."  Wolf,  surely  a  competent 
judge,  expresses  the  common  sentiment  of  Greek 
critics,  when  he  says,  "the  Manual  Lexicon  of 
Schrevelius  is  not  good;  for  he  could  not  conjugate; 
he  gives  the  forms  falsely ;  he  did  not  understand 
Greek."^  It  was  said  in  England,  half  a  century 
ago,  that  Schrevelius's  editions  of  ancient  authors 
were  "more  elegant  than  correct;"!  and  it  is  ob- 
served of  him  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Americana,  that 
he  exhibited  "  more  industry  than  taste  or  judgment." 
We  do  not  mention  these  things  because  Schrevelius 
says  any  thing  on  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  ques- 
tion, with  which  we  disagree,  but  to  show  the 
discrimination  of  my  reviewers  in  estimating  authors 
and  books.     We  remember  well,  when  in  the  days 

*  WolPs  AUerthunswissenschaftj  Vol.  Ij  p.  193.     t  Encyclopedia  Briltanica. 


41 

of  boyhood,  Schrevelins's  lexicon  was  our  daily 
companion  at  school,  for  years  in  succession.  Our 
teacher,  in  those  days,  obliged  us  to  commit  to  mem- 
ory Schrevelius's  Latin  definitions  of  Greek  Avords, 
and  we  shall  always  remember,  that  all  the  render- 
ings he  gives  to  haptizo  are  mergo^  abluo^  lavo^ — to 
merge,  perform  ablution,  and  to  wash;  but  as  merg- 
ing is  washing,  we  never  thought  that  the  word 
Avhich  means  to  merge,  means  to  wash  by  sprinkling! 
We  never  extracted  that  idea  from  Schrevelius,  nor 
do  we  believe  that  it  ever  entered  into  his  mind.=^ 

Quite  in  keeping  with  their  way  of  reporting 
lexicons,  is  our  reviewers'  mode  of  reporting  other 
books.  They  publish  in  an  emphatic  manner  the 
declaration,  "Mr.  Carson  admits  that  the  lexicogra- 
phers are  against  him."  But  the  truth  is,  that  in 
regard  to  the  point  which  we  are  now  examining, — 
whether  the  lexicons  give  to  baptize  the  sense  of 
sprinkle, — Mr.  Carson  makes  no  such  admission,  but 
asserts  exactly  the  opposite.  It  would  seem  as  if 
my  reviewers  had  never  read  Mr.  Carson's  work. 
He  never  read  in  the  lexicons  what  they  have  dis- 
covered, that  sprinkle  is  given  as  a  meaning  of 
baptizo.  The  great  question  which  he  is  discussing 
is  this, — whether  the  two  words,  bapto  and  baptizo^ 
are  "exactly  the  same  as  to  signification"  {laobwaimC), 
He  speaks  of  those  who  say  that  they  are  so.  He 
says  (p.  13),  "Writers  in  general  have  argued  from 
the  one  word  to  the  other,  as  if  they  perfectly  cor- 
responded in  meaning."  The  difference  he  asserts 
to  be  this ;  that  bapto  is  never  used  to  denote  the 
ordinance  of  baptism  ;  that  for  this  baptizo  is  always 

*  The  manner  in  which  my  reviewers  have  treated  this  whole  subject  of  lex- 
icography, is  very  singular.  The  lexicons  which  ihey  quote,  do  not  sustain  them. 
Many  of  tlieir  oZ/jer  authorities  fail.  Mr.  Leigh,  however,  an  English  writer,  to 
whom  they  refer,  in  his  work  entitled,  "  Crinca  Sacra,"  does  make' some  remarks 
on  the  word,  which  are  apposite  to  their  purpose  ;  but  he  quotes  as  authority  Dr. 
Daniel  Featley,  a  healed  and  violent  controversialist,  who  wished  to  employ  the 
civil  povver^to  exterminate  the  Baptists  in  England  ;  the  persecutor  against  whom 
Milton  employed  his  pen,  and  who  entreated  "the  most  noble  lords"  that  the 
poet  "might  be  cut  off  as  a  pestilent  Anabaptist."  Yet,  even  Leigh  acknowl» 
edges,  at  the  close  of  his  article,  that  ihQ  proper  meaning  of  the  word  Is  immerse. 

4# 


42 

employed;  and  that  while  the  first  word  often 
denotes  dyeing,  the  second  is  never  used  for  that 
purpose.  In  regard  to  this  distinction^  Professor 
Stuart  has  declared  that  Mr.  Carson  has  proved  it 
incontrovertibly,  and  says,  that  from  personal  exam- 
ination, he  has  come  to  the  same  conclusion.  From 
this  it  would  follow,  that  all  the  passages  in  which 
hapto  is  cited  to  illustrate  the  ordinance  of  baptism, 
are  irrelevant,  as  that  word  is  never  applied  to  the 
rite.  Touching  the  primary  meaning  of  either  word, 
Mr.  Carson  says  (p.  80),  "I  have  no  quarrel  with 
the  lexicons;"  and  adds,  "Baptist  writers  have 
always  appealed  with  the  greatest  confidence  to  the 
lexicons  even  of  Psedobaptist  writers.  On  the  con- 
trary, their  opponents  often  take  refuge  in  a  supposed 
sacred  or  scriptural  use,  that  they  may  be  screened 
from  the  fire  of  the  lexicons."     (p.  80.) 

The  fault  which  Mr.  Carson  finds  with  the  lex- 
icons, is  in  relation  to  their  defect^  in  not  marking 
well  the  difference  between  borrowed  and  figurative 
meanings,  and  those  which  are  literal  and  proper. 
He  says,  "I  maintain,  that  in  figures  there  is  no 
different  meaning  of  the  ivord.  It  is  only  a  figurative 
application.  The  meaning  of  the  word  is  always 
the  same.  Nor  does  any  one  need  to  have  a  figura- 
tive application  explained  in  any  other  way  than  by 
giving  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word.  When  this 
is  known,  it  must  be  a  bad  figure  which  does  not 
contain  its  own  light.  It  is  useless  to  load  lexicons 
with  figurative  applications,  except  as  a  concord- 
ance." This  is  the  amount  of  Mr.  Carson's  criticism 
on  the  lexicons.  He  expressly  declares,  "  I  admit 
that  the  meaning  which  they  take  out  of  the  word, 
is  always  implied  in  the  passage  where  the  word 
occurs.  But  I  deny  that  this  meaning  is  expressed 
by  the  word."=^     Here  ^ve   see   that  Mr.   Carson's 

*  A  remark  precisely  in  accordance  with  Mr.  Carson's  position,  occurs  in  the 
preface  of  Richardson's  Dictionary,  London  edition,  p.  39.  The  writer  is  speak- 
ing of  Dr.  Johnson's  want  of  care  in  not  adhering  more  closely  to  the  principle  he 
■faad  laid  down,  respecting  the  development  of  the  proper  meaning  and  the  conse- 


43 

accurate  and  discriminating  mind  insists  on  a  just 
distinction  between  the  proper  and  the  borrowed,  as 
well  as  figurative  meanings  of  a  word  (a  point,  on 
which  he  has  had  much  controversy  witli  the  ^ath- 
ohcs) — censures  the  lexicons,  and  English  diction- 
aries, too,  for  not  marking  it — says  that  the  real 
difference  between  bapto  and  baptizo  they  have  over- 
looked ;  but  is  this  admitting  that  they  sanction  what 
he  deems  the  enormous  error,  of  saying  that  baptize 
means  to  sprinkle  ?  Far  from  it.  To  what  cause, 
then,  shall  it  be  attributed,  that  Messrs.  Cooke  and 
Tovvrne  have  left  their  readers  with  the  impression, 
that  Mr.  Carson  concedes  as  to  the  lexicons,  what 
they  are  endeavoring  to  maintain  ?  Let  the  reader 
decide. 

In  summing  up  their  remarks  on  the  lexicons 
(p.  97),  our  authors  say,  "The  reader  is  now  pre- 
pared to  estimate  correctly  the  validity  of  Mr. 
Hague's  claim  to  all  the  lexicographers.  We  sol- 
emnly AVER,  THAT  NO  LEXICOGRAPHER  WITHIN  OUR 
KNOWLEDGE,     IN    ANY    COUNTRY,     AGREES    WITH    HIM."       I 

am  sorry  that  they  use  that  word  "solemnly"  here. 
It  seems  to  indicate  in  the  mind  more  heat  than  light, 
considering  the  occasion.  What  light  have  they 
given  the  reader,  that  by  its  aid  he  might  be  "pre- 
pared to  estimate  correctly  "  those  testimonies  which 
I  presented  ?  Strong  assertions^  frequently  repeated, 
that  those  scholars  whom  I  referred  to,  and  many 
others  also,  define  the  word  in  question,  to  sprinkle. 
Why  did  they  not  include  Donnegan  in  their  list  ? 
Do  they  not  know  him?  Did  I  not  point  him  out? 
At  Princeton  and  xlndover,  and  by  men  of  all  creeds, 
his  work  has  been  acknowledged  to  be  of  standard 
character.  Did  they  omit  it,  because  it  is  in  Eng- 
lish, and  easy  of  access  ?     I  have  not  now  met  their 

quential  APPLICATION  of  words,  and  says,  "There  is  one  general  error  pervading 
the  explanations,  imputable  to  interpreters  in  general,  who,  'seeking  the  meaning 
of  a  word  singly  from  the  passages  in  which  it  is  found,  connect  with  it  the  mean- 
ing of  some  other  word  or  words  in  the  sentence.'  This  is  to  interpret  the  import 
of  the  CONTEXT,  and  not  to  explain  the  individual  meaning  of  the  word," 


44 

assertions  by  mere  counter-assertions.  I  have  ex- 
hibited to  the  reader  the  grounds  on  which  I  deny 
their  statements.  (1.)  I  have  shown,  that  in  quoting 
the  l^icons  they  have  omitted  important  explanatory 
clauses.  (2.)  That  if  their  version  of  the  Latin 
definitions  is  just,  the  lexicographer  is  made  to  utter 
palpable  absurdity.  (3.)  That  in  claiming  the 
lexicographer  as  on  their  side,  for  such  a  reason  as 
they  give,  they  contradict  themselves.  (4.)  That 
the  j)rocess  by  which  they  bring  the  lexicons  on  to 
their  side,  would  prove  equally  well,  that  to  sprinkle 
means  to  immerse.  (5.)  That  their  reasoning,  by 
confounding  important  distinctions  in  defining  words, 
could  be  used  to  prove  that  any  Baptist  writer  is  on 
their  side,  as  easily  as  the  lexicographers. 

The  grand,  the  fatal  mistake  of  my  reviewers  in 
reading  and  reporting  the  lexicons,  in  all  that  they 
say  connected  with  philology,  is  expressed  in  a  short 
sentence  on  page  97:  "  It  is  enough  to  say,  that  other 
meanings  are  other  meanings,  come  from  what  source 
they  may.^^  This  is  very  different  from  the  opinion 
of  Dr.  Johnson,  who  considered  it  to  be  of  vast 
importance  to  mark  very  closely  different  kinds  of 
meanings,  and  from  what  sources  they  came.  He 
thought  that  it  was  the  great  business  of  a  lexicog- 
rapher to  do  this.  In  his  "  Plan  of  an  English  Dic- 
tionary," he  says,  "  In  explaining  the  general  and 
popular  language,  it  seems  necessary  to  sort  the 
several  senses  of  each  word,  and  to  exhibit,  first,  its 
natural  and  primitive  signification,  and  then  to  give 
its  consequential  meaning."  This  is  a  principle  of 
immense  importance.  We  have  already  noticed,  for 
instance,  that  "to  wet"  is  a  consequential  meaning 
of  such  words  as  dip,  swim,  float,  sink,  immerse, 
pour,  and  sprinkle ;  but  it  is  not  a  definition  of  either 
of  them.  If  a  man  should  assert  that  it  was,  should 
reason  on  it  as  such,  saying,  that  it  was  annexed  to 
one  or  all  of  those  words  in  a  dictionary,  what  would 
be  thought  of  his  perspicacity?     If  a  servant,  when 


45 

directed  to  dip  his  pitcheij  should  sprinkle  water 
over  it,  and  then  maintain  that  he  had  obeyed  the 
direction,  because  he  had  found  in  a  dictionary  that 
dip  means  "  to  wet,"  and  therefore  dip  must  mean  to 
apply  water  in  any  ^node,  what  would  be  thought  of 
his  aptness?  And  if  his  employer  should  patiently 
reason  with  him,  and  tell  him  that  the  proper  mean- 
ing of  dip  is  not  simply  "  to  wet,"  and  that  the 
proper  meaning  of  sprinkle  is  not  simply  "  to  wet," 
but  that  those  words  denote  specific  acts,  of  Avhich 
^'  to  wet"  is  the  consequence, — that  therefore  it  is  a 
meaning  which  only  comes  by  implication^ — what  i 
he  should  reply,  '  Well,  that  does  not  alter  the  case, 
^^  other  meanings  are  other  meanings^  come  froin 
what  soin^ce  they  may  /"  '  What  comment  would  be 
heard  on  his  spirit  of  obedience,  and  on  the  use  which 
he  had  made  of  his  learning?  Would  it  be  said  that 
his  knowledge  had  aided  him  to  explain  or  to  explain 
aioay  his  master's  commands  ?  Would  it  be  said 
that  he  had  properly  understood  the  dictionaries 
which  he  had  read  ?  If  he  would  truly  have  under- 
stood them,  in  such  a  case,  then  our  authors  have 
understood  the  lexicons ;  but  if  otherwise,  then  they 
have  misread  them  as  egregiously  as  he  would  have 
done,  for  their  mode  of  interpretation  is  precisely  the 
same. 

Having  thus  minutely  examined  their  charges  of 
error,  and  shown  the  proofs  and  grounds  on  which 
I  pronounce  them  to  be  utterly  fallacious,  I  proceed 
to  consider  the  next  most  important  section  of  their 
Rejoinder,  which  is  entitled, 

PRINCIPLES     OF    PHILOLOGY. 

We  have  already  been  led  to  some  development  of 
these,  but  a  further  consideration  of  several  points 
appears  to  be  desirable.  I  regard  this  subject  as 
important,  because  it  involves  the  turning  point  of 
the  controversy.  If  I  have  succeeded  in  this  part  of 
the  argument,  my  success  is  complete  j   if  I  have 


46 

failed  here,  my  failure  is  irretrievable.  If  the  word 
baptize,  in  the  commission  of  Christ,  really  means  to 
sprinkle  or  to  pour,  there  can  be  no  argument  to 
sustain  immersion.  The  practice  of  all  antiquity 
would  not  avail  to  set  aside  the  supreme  law ;  and 
to  persist  in  the  practice  of  immersion,  would  be 
rebellion  against  the  Head  of  the  church. 

That  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  the  hinge  of  the 
question,  our  authors  virtually  declared  in  their 
''  Hints  to  an  Inquirer."  In  commencing  that  chap- 
ter entitled,  "Meaning  of  the  word  Baptize,"  they 
say,  "  The  argument  for  immersion  is  founded  upon 
the  assumption  that  the  words  baptism  and  immer- 
sion convey  the  same  idea.  But  this  is  a  great 
mistake."  This  statement  of  the  ground  of  the 
argument  for  immersion  is  undoubtedly  correct,  and 
I  proceeded  to  show  that  it  was  no  mere  "  assump- 
tion "  or  "mistake."  At  the  outset,  I  commended 
the  author  of  the  Hints,  for  narrowing  the  field  of 
discussion.  Many  other  advocates  of  sprinkling  or 
pouring  as  baptism,  have  admitted  all  we  ask  touch- 
ing the  meaning  of  the  word,  but  have  pleaded  for 
their  various  modes,  on  the  ground  of  ancient  cus- 
tom, prevailing  practice,  or  convenience;  and  some 
have  insisted,  that  literal  conformity  to  the  primitive 
practice  is  not  essential  to  obedience.  The  article  of 
Professor  Stuart,  in  the  Biblical  Repository,  Vol.  Ill, 
has  in  it  much  that  I  approve.  But  when  he  advo- 
cates the  doctrine,  that  all  modes  of  Christian  rites 
may  change  with  circumstances, — that,  in  case  of 
necessity,  the  Lord's  supper  may  be  celebrated  with 
"fish  and  water"  (p.  367), — that  "the  external 
matters  pertaining  to  religion"  may  be  "modified 
by  time  and  place,  by  manners  and  customs" 
(p.  373),  then  I  feel  obliged  to  express  my  dissent, 
simply  on  the  ground,  that  Jesus  has  said,  "If  ye 
love  me,  keep  my  commandments.^^  When  the  same 
author  declares  (p.  313),  "  that  the  predominant 
usage  of  the  words  bapto  and  bapiizo  is,  to  designate 


47 

the  idea  of  dipping,  plunging,  or  overwhelming," — 
"that  Christians  began  somewhat  early  to  deflect 
from  the  ancient  practice  of  immersing"  (p.  376),  I 
am  pleased  with  his  openness  and  candor ;  but  when 
he  urges  the  adoption  of  that  mode  of  baptism  which 
is  the^most  msiructive,  and  says  that  "in  the  East, 
where  bathing  is  so  common,  and  where  religious 
rites  especially  have  required  ablution,  it  may  be 
more  significant  in  some  cases  to  i7mnerse;  but  in  the 
west  and  north,  where  sueh  rites  have  long  ceased, 
immersion  can  have  no  more  significancij  than 
affusion  or  sprinkling,"  I  cannot  but  feel  that  he  has 
turned  his  eye  away  from  the  true  standard  of  prac- 
tice, and  substituted  a  varying  principle  of  expe- 
diency for  God's  law  and  testimony.  When,  there- 
fore, the  authors  before  us  seemed  ready,  in  opening 
their  discussion,  to  abide  by  the  true  meaning  of 
the  word  baptize^  and  to  let  their  cause  rest  on  their 
success  in  showing  the  fundamental  position  of  thfe 
Baptists  touching  that  word  to  be  a  mistake,  I  was 
encouraged  to  write,  with  the  hope  that  the  contro- 
versy would  soon  be  brought  into  closer  quarters, 
and  possess  a  character  of  more  definiteness  and 
certainty. 

For  these  reasons,  on  opening  this  second  pam- 
phlet of  my  opponents,  I  was  particularly  desirous  to 
see  how  they  would  dispose  of  the  reasonings,  facts, 
and  testimonies  on  "  the  meaning  of  the  word," 
which  I  had  laid  before  them.  I  passed  by  other 
sections,  to  notice  that  entitled.  Principles  of  Philol- 
ogy^ and  found  that  it  commenced  with  a  statement 
of  what  was  called  "  the  grand  principle  "  of  my 
philology.  Now  it  is  an  important  thing  to  state  a 
fundamental  principle.  The  perspicacity  and  fair- 
ness Avhich  enable  one  to  do  this  well,  are  essential 
qualifications  for  a  competent  advocate  of  any  cause. 
I  had  hoped,  therefore,  in  this  case,  to  see  a  state- 
ment which  I  could  pronounce  a  just  one.  Instead 
of  this,  I  find  the  following:  "  The  grand  principle 


48 

of  Mr.  Hague's  philology  seems  to  be  this, — that  if 
all  the  various  meanings  of  a  word  can  be  traced,  by 
any  relation,  however  fancAfiil^  to  any  one  of  those 
meanings,  that  one  embraces  the  whole  in  itself." 
This  report  of  the  subject  is  about  as  correct  as  that 
which  was  once  given  of  Paul's  speech  on  Mars' 
Hill,  by  some  philosophers  who  had  heard  it,  and 
who  said,  "  he  seemeth  to  be  a  setter  forth  of  strange 
gods."  This  strange  principle  was  no  more  a  part 
of  my  philology,  than  were  the  strange  gods  a  part 
of  Paul  s  theology.  In  both  cases  the  reporters  said, 
''it  seems  to  be  so;"  but  this  arose  from  the  want  of 
close  attention.  Having  made  a  definite  statement 
of  my  principles,  no  extraordinary  effort  was  required 
to  discover  them. 

What  were  these  principles  ?  If  the  reader  will 
turn  to  page  19  of  my  pamphlet,  he  will  find  them 
laid  down  in  the  words  of  Ernesti,  quoted  from 
Professor  Stuart's  translation  of  that  writer  on  "the 
principles  of  interpretation."     They  are  these  : 

1.  "  The  literal  meaning  is  not  to  be  deserted, 
without  reason  or  necessity." 

2.  "  liet  not  the  translator  commute  genus  for 
species,  nor  antecedent  for  consequent." 

These  canons  are  self-evident,  and  of  vital  impor- 
tance. Neglect  them,  and  all  language  is  uncertain. 
The  whole  system  of  interpretation  is  "  without  form 
and  void,"  and  darkness  covers  the  face  thereof. 

Let  us  look  at  these  rules  more  closely.  According 
to  the  first,  the  literal  sense  must  always  have 
precedence  over  the  figurative.  "The  literal  sense 
of  words,"  says  Ernesti  (p.  7),  "is  the  sense  which 
is  so  connected  with  them,  that  it  is  first  in  order ^ 
and  is  spontaneously  presented  to  the  mind,  as  soon 
as  the  sound  of  the  word  is  heard."  If  any  one 
were  asked  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  e«^,"  he 
would  say,  "  to  devour  food  with  the  mouth."  But 
when  we  speak  of  "  a  man's  vices  eating  up  his 
health  and  money,"  the  plainest  man  would  see  that 


4& 

the  word  borrowed  a  meaning  from  the  context,  and 
that,  departing  by  necessity  from  the  literal  sense,  it 
must  be  understood  figuratively,  to  mean  consume. 
But  if  he  should  understand  it  figuratively,  when 
the  literal  sense  would  apply,  as  in  the  phrase, 
"cannibals  eat  human  flesh,"  he  would  act  absurd- 
ly. Ernesti  observes,  again  (p.  21),  that  "the  first 
important  distinction  or  division  of  words,  in  respect 
to  their  meaning,  is  into  proper  and  tropical,  that  is, 
literal  and  figurative.  A  proper  word  is  a  definite 
name^  given  to  a  certain  thing  ;  a  tropical  (or  figura- 
tive) word,  is  one  used  out  of  its  proper,  that  is, 
original  sense.  And  the  first  duty  of  an  interpreter, 
in  respect  to  tropical  language,  is,  to  rightly  distin- 
guish it  from  language  not  tropical,  so  as  not  to 
mistake  the  one  for  the  other."  In  the  chapter  on 
the  meaning  of  words,  it  is  said  :  "  There  can  he  7io 
certainty  at  all  in  respect  to  the  interpretation  of  any 
passage,  unless  a  kind  of  necessity  com-pcls  us  to 
affix  a  particular  sense  to  a  word ;  which  se?ise,  as  I 
have  said  before,  must  be  one  ;  a7id  unless  there  are 
special  reasons  for  a  tropical  meanitig,  it  must  be  the 
LITERAL  sensed  This  is  the  leading  principle  of  the 
philology  advocated  in  my  Review, — a  self-evident 
rule,  laid  down  in  a  standard  German  work,  and 
published  as  a  text-book  at  Andover,  years  ago. 

The  other  self-evident  rule,  which  I  have  quoted 
from  the  samQ  work,  is  equally  important:  "Let 
not  the  translator  commute  genus  for  species,  nor 
antecedent  for  consequent."  How  remarkably  my 
reviewers  have  neglected  this  rule,  has  already 
appeared.  A  striking  instance  of  it  occurred  in  their 
translation  of  the  Latin  extract  from  Turretin 
(which,  however,  contained  the  words  of  Vossius, 
adopted  by  Turretin),  where  they  rendered  the 
specific  name  of  a  figure,  which  is  metalepsis,  by  the 
generic  name,  trope.  If  this  mode  of  translation 
were  allowed,  inextricable  confusion  Avould  follow. 
The  most  essential  distinctions,  as  to  the  sense  of 


50 

words,  would  be  covered  up.  As  words  have  vari- 
ous senses,  it  is  very  necessary  to  observe  "from 
what  sources  they  come."  The  meanlxg  of  a  word 
is  one  thing;  the  figurative  or  the  consequential 
APPLICATION  of  that  meaning  is  another  thing.  The 
consequential  meaning  of  words  comes  hy  impUcatmi^ 
but  it  must  be  distinguished  from  the  jproper  mean- 
ing. For  instance  :  to  consume  is  a  consequence  of 
eadng ;  the  word  eat^  therefore,  implies  consuming. 
But  to  say  a  thing  is  consumed,  does  not  involve,  by 
implication,  the  idea  of  its  being  eaten.  These 
meanings  are  distinct,  and,  as  the  rule  says,  must 
not  be  confounded.  There  is  a  vast,  an  essential 
difference,  therefore,  between  denoting  the  idea  of 
consumption,  by  a  word  that  literally  means  con- 
sume, and  one  that  only  involves  that  idea  by  impli- 
cation. Plain  as  this  distinction  is,  our  authors  are 
blind  to  it,  or.  at  any  rate,  openly  deny  it.  Speaking 
of  my  appeal  to  the  lexicons,  they  say  (p.  97),  "He 
appeals  to  Robinson's  lexicon,  as  one  which  confines 
the  meaning  to  immerse,  and  yet  he  quotes  other 
meanings.  The  same  is  true  of  others  named  by 
him.  Mr.  Hague  seeks,  indeed,  to  evade  the  point, 
by  saying  that  all  the  other  meanings  are  figurative, 
or  derived, =^  or  come  by  implication.  This  will  be 
more  fully  answered  hereafter.  It  is  enough  to  say 
here^  that  other  meanings  are  other  meanings,  com^e 
from  what  sow^ce  they  may.^'' .  This  last  sentence,  as 
I  have  said,  involves  their  fatal  mistake.  It  is  a 
key,  to  unlock  what  has  been  a  mystery  to  some, 
that  the  reverend  gentlemen  should  be  so  bold  in 
asserting  that  the  standard  lexicons  are  with  them. 
Confounding  as  they  do,  things  which  differ,  blind  to 
these  clear  and  important  distinctions,  they  trample 
on  the  plainest  laws  of  language,  without  seeming  to 
be  aware  of  it,  and  draw  from  the  lexicons  what 
their  authors  never  thought  of  inditing. 

Afterwards   (on  p.  106),  they  refer  to  this  point 

*  The  word  derived  our  authors  have  inserted  for  me. 


51 

again,  and  furnish  new  proof  that  T  was  right,  in 
saying  that  they  did  not  read  the  lexicons  correctly. 
They  observe,  "  In  his  remarks  on  the  several 
definitions  given  to  the  word  baptizo  in  Robinson's 
lexicon,  Mr.  Hague  says,  '  That  abbreviated  Avord, 
denoting  by  implication^  is  very  important  in  this 
case,  and  involves  the  principle  which  Mr.  Towne 
has  overlooked;  and  by  overlooking  it,  he  misun- 
derstands the  lexicons.'  "  This  grave  charge,  which 
I  was  under  the  necessity  of  bringing  against  their 
philology,  they  ought  to  have  met  very  fully,  if  they 
could  have  done  it.  But  what  is  their  reply  ?  As 
follows:  "It  seems,  then,  that  we  have  not  yet 
learned  to  read  the  lexicons,  because  we  see  not  how 
to  trace  all  the  meanings  which  branch  off  by  impli- 
cation, to  one  meaning,  and  make  the  whole  family 
of  significations  attached  to  each  word  but  one 
meaning.  Upon  this  principle,  the  whole  controver- 
sy is  in  fact  made  to  turn."  Now,  any  reader  can 
see  that  this  reply  does  not  touch  the  case  in  hand. 
No,  gentlemen,  turn  not  your  attention  away  from 
the  real  point  at  issue.  I  have  not  complained  of 
any  inability  in  you  to  make  all  meanings  only  one, 
but  of  your  confounding  figurative  applications,  and 
those  senses  which  exist  only  by  iinplication.  with 
the  literal  meaning,  placing  them  on  the  same  level, 
reasoning  from  them  as  if  they  were  the  same  thing, 
and  saying,  no  matter  from  ichat  source  they  come ! 
This  is  my  indictment,  for  which,  certainly,  there  is 
just  occasion  ;  but,  overlooking  it  entirely,  you  plead 
"not  guilty"  to  another,  of  which  I  had  said  or 
thougVit  nothing. 

Here,  while  I  write,  I  am  constrained  to  pause  a 
moment,  seriously  to  consider  the  question,  whether 
the  authors  of  the  Rejoinder  never  noticed  such 
obvious  principles  of  interpretation,  as  those  which 
I  have  quoted.  Or,  if  they  have  noticed  them,  have 
they  never  so  felt  their  worth,  as  habitually  to 
remember  them,  and  apply  them  in  practice  ?     Have 


52 

they  never,  in  their  elementary  studies,  learned  to 
distinguish  between  the  meanings  which  words  have 
as  simple  names  of  objects,  and  when  used  as  tropes 
or  figures;  between  meanings  which  are  called 
native,  proper,  or  literal,  and  those  which  co-exist 
with  them  simply  by  implication,  and  on  that 
account  are  modified  by  them?  Unless  such  dis- 
tinctions be  observed,  it  is  in  vain  to  talk  of  the 
principles  of  philology,  or  the  science  of  interpreta- 
tion ;  we  have  no  better  means  of  ascertainiiig  with 
certainty  the  meaning  of  language,  than  have  the 
aborigines  of  the  forest.  Lexicography  can  then 
present  us  with  nothing  but  a  chaos  of  usages,  and 
the  best  lexicographers  are  those  against  whom  Dr. 
Gregory  Sharpe  launches  a  censure,  when  he  speaks 
of  those  "  who  remove  the  primary  sense  out  of  its 
place,  and  break  that  chain  of  significations,  so 
necessary  to  preserve  consistency,  and  relieve  the 
burthen  of  remembrance."  ^ 

But  as  our  authors  speak  of  principles  of  philology, 
it  is  natural  to  ask,  on  what  principle  they  profess  to 
justify  their  mode  of  interpreting  words.  This  they 
intended  to  give  us,  in  the  following  sentence  :  "  Per- 
mit us  to  remind  Mr.  Hague,  that  secondary  mean- 
ings shoot  forth  from  the  primary  significations  of 
almost  all  words — a  grand  characteristic  of  language 
which  he  seems  wholly  to  overlook.  They  proceed 
generally  from  cause  to  efi'ect :  and  it  not  unfrequent- 
ly  happens,  that  the  primary  meaning  is  merged  or 
lost  in  some  remote  secondary."  This  sentence 
contains  a  statement  of  two  things;  first,  of  a  prin- 
ciple^ secondly,  of  an  historical /ac^. 

(1.)  As  to  the  principle,  there  is  no  dispute  about 
its  truth.  I  never  knew  it  to  be  denied,  "  that  sec- 
ondary meanings  shoot  forth  from  the  primary  sig- 
nifications of  almost  all  words."  Every  man  knows 
it,  who  has  thought  a  moment  on  the  subject.  It 
would  be  very  difficult  for  me  to   "overlook  this 

*  See  Preface  to  Richardson's  Dictionary,  Section  H. 


53 

grand  characteristic  of  language."  The  difference 
between  the  views  of  my  opponents  and  my  own,  is 
not  on  this  point,  but  on  the  importance  of  the  ques- 
tion, HOW  these  "  secondary  meanings  shoot  forth." 
They  say.  No  matter  hoiv^ — no  matter  from  what 
source  they  come.  That  question,  they  think,  need 
not  be  looked  at, — it  may  as  well  be  covered  up.  I 
say,  it  is  a  great  matter  to  see  how  they  come  ;  for 
if  they  come  only  by  metaphor,  or  by  some  other 
figure  of  speech,  or  consequentially,  or  by  implica- 
tion, then  they  co-exist  with  the  primary  meaning, 
and  are  explained  and  limited  by  it. 

(2.)  As  to  the  historical  fact  stated  here,  that  it 
"not  unfrequently  happens,  that  the  primary  mean- 
ing is  merged  or  lost  in  some  remote  secondary," 
that  is  a  thing  to  be  made  out  only  by  historical 
proofs,  in  the  case  of  each  word  whereof  it  is  assert- 
ed. My  reviewers  state,  as  a  fact^  what  sometimes 
happens,  and  then  reason  from  it,  as  if  they  had  laid 
down  a  fixed  and  universal  prijicvple.  This  state- 
ment can  avail  them  nothing  in  this  discussion, 
unless  they  can  prove  historically,  that  before  the 
gospels  were  written, — before  the  commission  was 
given, — the  primary  meaning  of  haptizo  had  been 
"nierged  and  lost^^  in  some  secondary.  Let  them 
do  this,  if  they  can.  In  that  effort,  they  would  have 
all  the  lexicons  against  them,  without  any  mistake. 
If  they  should  succeed,  they  would  gain  immortal 
honor,  not  merely  as  theologians,  but  as  philologists; 
because  it  would  be  bringing  to  light  what  was 
unknown  to  Stephanus,  or  Schleusner,  or  even  to 
Schrevelius. 

It  is  quite  remarkable,  however,  that  while  our 
authors  state  as  a  fact,  that  primary  meanings  of 
words  are  sometimes  lost,  they  do  not  sustain  their 
statement  by  any  instance  of  it.  If  they  suppose 
that  they  have  done  so  in  the  case  of  the  word 
SPRING,  their  mistake  is  very  great  indeed.  My 
assertion  of  the  modifying  power  of  the  primary 


54 

meaning,  they  designate  ''Mr.  Hague's  principle  of 
one  meaning;"  and  say,  let  the  reader  apply  it  to 
the  following  sentence:  "In  the  spring  of  1840,  a 
man  by  the  name  of  Spring,  made  a  spring  over  a 
ditch,  and  fell  into  a  spring  on  the  opposite  side,  and 
broke  the  spring  of  his  watch."  This  is  a  capital 
example,  and  I  thank  the  reviewers  for  not  being 
deterred  from  printing  the  sentence  by  any  scruples 
touching  its  inelegance.  I  unite  with  them  in  asking 
the  reader  to  apply  to  it  the  principle  which  I  have 
exhibited, — the  modifying  power .  of  the  primary 
meaning.  The  word  spring  is  of  Saxon  origin. 
The  verb  gives  rise  to  the  noun,  and  its  meaning  is, 
"  rise — arise — or  raisey^  This  meaning  has  various 
applications.  1.  It  denotes  the  rising  up  of  seeds  or 
plants  from  the  ground;  as  in  Joel  2:  22,  "the 
pastures  of  the  wilderness  do  spring."  Hence,  it  is 
.applied  as  a  name  to  that  season,  in  which  vegeta- 
tion, springing  forth  afresh,  exhibits  the  aspect  of  a 
general  resurrection ;  and  its  primary  meaning  so 
limits  it,  that  it  could  not  be  given  as  a  name  to  that 
season  in  which  vegetation  decays,  or  that  in  which  it 
lies  enshrouded  in  its  wintry  tomb.  2.  It  denotes  the 
rising  up  of  water  from  the  earth,  and  is  applied  as 
a  name  to  a  living  fountain  ;  but  its  primary  mel&.n- 
ing,  far  from  being  lost^  so  governs  it,  that  it  could 
not  be  applied  to  a  stagnant  body  of  water,  a  cistern, 
or  a  reservoir.  3.  It  may  denote  the  rising  up  of  a 
man  from  the  ground,  and  thus  may  stand  for  the 
word  leap,  or  jump ;  but  its  primary  meaning  so  rules 
its  application,  that  it  cannot  be  made  to  designate  a 
slow,  horizontal  motion,  such,  for  instance,  as  follows 
from  one's  being  dragged  or  propelled  along.  4.  It  is 
applied,  also,  to  any  thing  elastic;  that  is  (says 
Richardson),  "  to  any  thing  which,  when  stretched 
or  pressed,  rises  or  returns  again  ;"  and  its  primary 
meaning  so  guides  it,  that  while  it  may  point  out  the 
source  of  motion  in  a  watch,  it  cannot  be  made  to 

*  Richardson's  English  Dictionary. 


55 

designate  any  other  part.  5.  It  is  used  to  indicate  the 
rising  of  a  plank  from  its  place,  or  a  sudden  motion 
in  a  thing  from  its  own  elastic  force,  and  hence  may 
denote  a  crevice,  a  crack,  start,  or  leak ;  but  its 
primary  meaning  so  rules  it,  that  it  cannot  denote  an 
aperture  made  by  cutting,  wearing,  burning,  or 
corrosion.  6.  It  is  applied,  by  a  metaphor,  to  denote  a 
motive  of  conduct,  which  is  called  a  "  spring  of 
action"  in  man;  but  its  primary  meaning  still  lives 
and  reigns,  sways  the  sceptre  over  it,  defines  the 
bounds  of  its  application,  commands  it  to  designate 
that  which  gives  rise  to  action,  and  forbids  it  to  point 
out  the  mere  consequence  or  the  effect  which  follows 
action.  7.  Lastly,  the  word  spring  may  be  transferred 
as  a  name  to  an  individual,  and  so  may  the  names 
of  other  seasons ;  but  then,  "  a  man's  name  "  is  not 
ja  meaning  either  of  spring,  summer  or  winter. 

Now,  then,  I  have  accepted  my  reviewer's  chal- 
lenge. I  have  applied  the  general  principle  which  I 
advocate,  to  the  sentence  which  they  have  construct- 
ed for  the  sake  of  trying  its  strength;  and  what  is 
the  result?  I  have  shown,  that  in  no  instance  is  the 
primary  meaning  merged  or  lost, — that  it  not  only 
exists,  but  "lives  in  state,"  rules  like  a  king  over  all 
its  secondaries,  and  says  to  each,  "thus  far  shalt 
thou  go,  and  no  farther."  It  will  not  allow  them  to 
forget  from  what  source  they  come^  but  makes  them 
mindful  of  their  origin,  and  the  limits  of  their  power. 
Such  philology  as  that  of  my  opponents,  would  teach 
them  rebellion,  and  urge  them  to  throw  off  their 
allegiance;  but  "order  is  Heaven's  first  law,"  and 
they  are  bound  by  a  sway  which  they  cannot  break. 
The  facts  of  the  case  show  that  our  authors'  criticism 
is  false.  I  lay  it  in  the  dust,  where  it  belongs,  and, 
passing  the  very  test  which  they  propose,  come  forth 
with  the  clearer  proof  that  their  principles  of  philol- 
ogy are  erroneous. 

In  regard  to  this  point,  my  reviewers  could  not  do 
themselves  a  greater  service  than  to  ponder  the  truth 


m 

contained  in  the  following  sentence,  from  the  preface 
of  Richardson's  EngUsh  Dictionary.  It  directs  at- 
tention to  the  difference  between  the  meaning  of  a 
word,  and  the  appUcation  of  that  meaning.  The 
writer  says,  "  While  investigating  the  meaning  and 
consequent  usage  or  application  of  words,  1  have 
considered  it  a  duty  incumbent  upon  the  lexicogra- 
pher, to  direct  his  view, — 1st,  to  the  etymology  and 
literal  meaning ;  2d,  to  the  metaphorical  application 
of  this  meaning ;  3d,  to  the  application  consequent 
or  inferred  from  the  literal  meaning;  and  4th,  to  the 
application  consequent  or  inferred  from  that  which  is 
metaphorical."  Again,  he  exhibits  it  as  the  duty  of 
a  lexicographer,  to  give  '-the  intrinsic  meaning  of 
the  word,  and  thence  to  trace  the  applications  in 
which  it  has  been  employed."  Had  they  duly  con- 
sidered this,  they  would  have  written  diflerently 
from  what  they  have  in  the  following  sentences  : 
"  For  the  sake  of  illustration,  let  us  suppose  that 
baptize  signified  originally  to  immerse.  As  washing 
is  sometimes  the  effect  of  immersing,  the  word  might 
easily  pass  from  its  first  specific  signification,  to 
denote  simply  the  effect,  and  in  process  of  time, 
wholly  displace  the  specijic  meaning.''''  Here  we 
see,  that  our  authors  admit  as  a  snppositioji,  what 
Professor  Stuart  states  as  a  fact,  that  the  original 
meaning  of  the  word  is  immerse.  Well,  if,  when 
immerse  was  an  adequate  rendering  of  the  word,  it 
would  naturally  denote  washing,  because  this  is 
implied  in  immersion,  we  can  see  at  once,  that  bap- 
tize may  mean  "wash"  by  implication,  without  the 
original  meaning  being  displaced.  The  two  senses 
would  co-exist,  and  the  one  woukl  limit  the  other. 
This  supposition,  then,  while  it  intimates  a  loss  of 
the  original  meaning  among  the  Greeks,  which  can- 
not be  proved,  sets  forth  the  original  state  of  the 
word  exactly  as  the  lexicons  declare  it.  It  directs 
our  eye  to  a  time,  before  the  transition  was  cftected, 
when  the  word  meant  both  immerse  and  wash,  at 


57 

once, — the  latter  by  implication^  and  modified  by  the 
former.  It  therefore  illustrates  the  lexicons,  which 
now  exhibit  both  meanings,  the  second,  however,  in 
subordination  to  the^r^^.  The  case,  as  here  stated, 
touching  the  former  condition  of  the  two  meanings, 
meets  all  the  demands  of  the  word,  as  it  occurs  in 
Greek  writings.  Why,  then,  should  the  gentlemen 
urge  so  fondly  the  idea  of  a  change?  Why  so  un- 
willing to  allow  the  second  meaning  to  live,  unless 
it  shall  crowd  the  first  out  of  existence,  to  occupy  its 
place,  and  even  when  it  is  dead  and  buried,  leave  it 
no  monument  or  epitaph,  to  tell  the  time  and  man- 
ner of  its  decease  7  Must  Greek  literature  bend  to 
the  practice  of  our  Western  churches,  and  provide 
changes  to  correspond  with  our  changes  of  times, 
circumstances,  and  habits  ?  The  condition  of  our 
architecture  in  this  country,  has  suggested  to  some 
writer  the  thought,  that  as  we  are  an  original  ^eo'^le^ 
we  ought  to  have  an  origirial  order ^  neither  Ionic, 
Doric,  nor  Corinthian.  This  might  be  comparatively 
pardonable,  considering  that  that  is  a  mere  matter  of 
taste;  but  to  recast  Greek  literature  into  a  modern 
mould,  to  give  it  a  dress  suited  to  our  manners,  and 
to  make  it  familiar  with  our  changes  of  custom, — 
why  this  would  be  achieving  more  than  the  mightiest 
scholars  of  the  old  world  ever  dreamed  of 

So  clear  is  the  evidence  in  regard  to  the  original 
meaning  of  the  word  baptize,  that  when  Professor 
Stuart  comes  to  speak  of  its  meaning  in  the  New 
Testament  alone,  he  goes  as  far  as  he  possibly  can, 
in  sustaining  our  views,  without  abandoning  the  last 
inch  of  ground,  in  the  scriptural  defence  of  the  prac- 
tice of  his  own  church.  After  saying  that  the  Greek 
fathers,  and  the  Latin  ones  who  were  familiar  with 
Greek,  understood  the  word  to  mean  immersion,  and 
felt  themselves  sustained  by  the  classics,  he  proceeds 
to  say:  "For  myself,  then,  I  cheerfully  admit,  that 
baptizo  in  the  New  Testament,  when  applied  to  the 
rite  of  baptism,  does  in  all  probability  involve  the 


58 

idea,  that  this  rite  was  usually  performed  by  immer- 
sion, but  not  always."^  Here,  that  learned  writer 
states  the  broad  r^vle  of  scriptural  baptism  to  be 
immersion.  Why,  then,  does  he  provide  for  some 
exceptions^  by  the  phrase,  "  not  always^^''  as  opposed 
to  '■^usually 7^''  Simply  because  the  cases  of  Corne- 
lius, of  the  jailer,  and  the  converts  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,-|-  suggest  difficulties  in  the  way  of  immer- 
sion. But  against  such  a  mighty  array  of  evidence 
as  the  professor  brings  in  favor  of  immersion,  these 
supposed  inconveniences  are  lighter  than  the  "small 
•dust  of  the  balance."  Actual  impossibilities  would 
determine  those  cases  against  immersion,  of  course ; 
but  inconveniences  can  effect  nothing  against  a 
positive  statement  of  inspired  apostles.  When  we 
are  told  that  Jesus  went  from  Galilee  to  Jordan,  to 
be  baptized  of  John,  we  might  as  well  let  the  incon- 
venience of  so  long  a  walk  deter  us  from  understand- 
ing that  simple  statement  in  its  obvious  sense. 

Of  all  the  words  in  the  Greek  tongue,  there  was 
never  one  whose  history  gave  firmer  proof  of  its 
having  retained  its  original  meaning.  In  the  article 
to  which  I  have  referred.  Professor  Stuart  says 
"(p.  359),  speaking  of  immersion,  "I  know  of  no  one 
usage  of  ancient  times,  which  seems  to  me  more 
clearly  and  certainly  made  out."  He  quotes  Dr. 
Brenner,  a  learned  Catholic  (p.  361),  acknowledging 
this,  though  contrary  to  the  practice  of  his  own 
church,  and  says,  moreover,  "the  mode  of  baptism 
by  immersion,  the  Oriental  church  has  always  con- 
tinued to  preserve,  even  down  to  the  present  time. 
The  members  of  this  church  are  accustomed  to  call 
the  members  of  the  Western  churches  sprinkled 
Christians^  by  way  of  ridicule  and  contempt.  They 
maintain  that  baptizo  can  mean  nothing  but  immerge, 
and  that  baptism  by  sprinkling  is  as  great  a  solecism 
a,s  'anmersion  by  asjyersion ;  and  they  claim  to  them- 
selves the  honor  of  having  preserved  the  ancient, 

*  Bib.  Rep.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  362.  t  Acts  10 :  47,  48.  IG  :  32,  33.  and  2 :  41. 


59^ 

sacred  rite  of  the  chnrch,  free  from  change  and  from 
corruption,  which  would  destroy  its  significancy." 
Reader,  consider  this  testimony  of  Professor  Stuart, 
for  which  he  refers  to  the  best  European  authorities. 
The  Oriental  church  charges  the  CathoUcs  with 
having  changed  immersion  into  sprinkHng.  The 
Catholics  own  the  charge,  and  confess  that  the 
Oriental  Christians  have  retained  the  ancient  rite. 
Remember  that  these  two  classes  of  Christians  are 
quite  jealous  of  each  other,  because  Orientalists  will 
not  bow  to  the  authority  of  the  pope ;  yet,  in  regard 
to  the  history  of  baptism,  they  both  agree !  There 
is  not  a  single  point  in  the  evidences  of  Christianity 
better  sustained.  He  who  denies  this,  with  his  eyes 
open  to  the  extent  of  the  evidence,  would  be  ill  pre- 
pared to  defend  the  authenticity  of  the  Scriptures 
against  the  attacks  of  infidelity. 

In  reference  to  my  remarks  on  the  force  of  the 
word  in  question,  we  read  (p.  108),  "Mr.  Hague 
says,  that  baptizo  must  determine  the  meaning  by 
its  own  force,  or  there  is  no  clue  to  the  author's 
meaning."  My  remark  was,  that  we  may  cite  mayiy 
cases^  in  which  the  word,  by  its  own  force,  must 
determine  the  meaning  of  the  sentence;  (see  my 
pamphlet,  p.  13,  or  Mr.  Cooke's  edition,  p.  71 ;)  and 
then,  again  (p.  14),  "I  could  fill  pages  with  such 
citations^  if  it  were  necessary  or  desirable,  showing 
that  if  the  word  does  not  determine  mode,  there  is  no 
clue  to  the  author's  meaning."  What  was  the  object 
of  these  citations?  It  was  to  ascertain  the  real, 
native  force  of  the  term,  in  accordance  with  an 
observation  of  Tholuck,  that  zV  z5  one  thing  to  give 
the  true  meaning  of  a  loord^  and  another  thing  to  give 
a  tneaning  lohich  it  borrows  from  the  context.  How 
then  shall  we  ascertain  its  own  legitimate  meaning, 
except  by  selecting  cases  where  the  word  influences 
the  context  more  than  it  is  affected  by  it ;  where  it 
is  a  principal  term,  and  becomes  the  point  on  which 
the  meaning  of  the  sentence  turns  ?    For  instance,  in 


60 

the  case  which  T  quoted  from  Josephns,  wherein, 
speaking  of  Jonah,  he  says  the  seamen  would  not 
throw  him  overboard,  until  the  ship  was  about  to  be 
baptized;  if  one  supposed  that  baptize  properly 
means  to  sprinkle,  or  wash,  or  apply  water  in  any 
mode,  he  would  be  quite  at  a  loss  to  translate  the 
sentence.  He  might  wonder  whether  the  pagan 
sailors  were  about  to  perform  some  religious  rite,  by 
sprinkling,  or  ablution,  and,  would  not  have  a  Jew 
on  board.  Yet,  if  he  knew  enough  of  the  manners 
and  customs  of  the  men  to  see  the  improbability  of 
this,  he  might  be  disposed  to  doubt  the  veracity  of 
his  author,  or  charge  him  with  uttering  an  absurdity. 
If,  however,  from  other  sources,  such  as  the  inspired 
writings,  he  had  known  the  facts  of  the  case,  he 
would  at  once  perceive,  as  we  do,  that  Josephus 
relies  on  the  word  baptize  to  denote  the  fact  of  the 
vessel's  going  under  water. 

Sometimes  we  find  writers,  describing  facts  with 
which  we  are  already  familiar,  giving  certain  acts  a 
name ;  and  thus  we  learn  the  force  of  words.  For 
instance,  when  Homer  says  (Od.,  I,  392),  "As  v/hen 
a  smith  dips  or  plunges  (baptei)  a  hatchet  or  huge 
pole  axe  into  water,  viz.,  to  harden  them ;"  here,  we 
are  taught  the  literal  meaning  of  the  word  as  clearly 
as  it  would  be  done  to  a  child,  if  the  action  were 
performed  before  his  eyes,  and  he  were  taught  to 
call  it  dipping.  Such  instances  often  occur;  and, 
thus  becoming  possessed  of  the  literal  meaning  of 
the  word,  we  quickly  see  what  is  involved  in  it  by 
implication^  and  learn  all  its  applications  in  meta- 
phors, and  other  figures.  Then,  when  we  find  such 
a  phrase  as  this,  the  ship  is  baptized  (^danreiai  ij  ravg)^ 
far  from  being  left  in  doubt  whether  it  means  that 
the  deck  was  sprinkled,  or  that  the  vessel  went  under 
water,  we  are  led  by  the  laws  of  language  to  take 
the  simple,  literal  sense,  and  see  at  a  glance  that  the 
vessel  was  submerged.  Whether  it  occur  in  the 
^^ fragment  of  a  sentence,"  or  a  "  complete  sentence," 


61 

the  rule  is  the  same;  and  unless  there  is  some  proof 
that  the  author  is  using  the  word  in  a  figurative 
sense,  or  giving  it  some  pecuUar  signification,  we  are 
obHged  to  interpret  it  Hterally.  This  we  will  always 
find  in  the  end  to  accord  with  the  design  of  the 
writer;  and  if,  in  any  particular  case,  the  meaning 
should  happen  to  be  doubtful,  the  rule  stated  for  it 
by  Ernesti  is  (p.  37),  that  we  must  "regulate  the 
interpretation  of  the  more  obscure  passage  by  that 
which  is  more  perspicuous." 

But  in  this  Rejoinder  (p.  108),  it  is  said,  the  word 
itself  does  not  forbid  our  translating  the  phrase,  "  the 
ship  is  washed  with  the  waves,  the  ship  is  launched," 
&c.  There  are  very  few  men  in  the  world,  able  to 
read  Greek,"  who  would  say  that;  and  those  few  are 
men  quite  warm  with  zeal  in  pressing  Greek  litera- 
ture into  the  service  of  their  church.  Probably  our 
authors  would  be  joined  in  this  remark  by  the  Rev. 
Greville  Ewing,  whom  they  have  quoted  as  author- 
ity^ but  touching  whom.  Professor  Stuart  says,  ''  that 
Dr.  Ewing  should  gravely  proffer  to  the  public  the 
word  jpop^  as  a  translation  of  haptizo^  might  tempt  to 
sarcasm  a  graver  man  than  Mr.  Carson."  In  sup- 
port of  their  assertion,  however,  our  reviewers  say, 
that  "  lexicographers  tell  us  that  the  word  sometimes 
means  simpfy  {ecpalog  yivsu^ai)  to  be  on  the  sea." 
This,  as  I  have  shown,  is  quite  a  mistake.  What 
suggests  it,  is  a  remark  of-Scapula,  made  to  illustrate 
one  -of  his  definitions.  It  is  this  :  "A  ship  is,  in  a 
neuter  sense,  said  to  dip,  to  denote  its  condition  on 
the  sea."  Such  language  is  common,  now.  When 
a  ship  plunges  heavily,  she  is  said  to  dip.  I  remem- 
ber once  to  have  heard  a  commercial  gentleman, 
comparing  two  vessels  with  which  he  was  acquaint- 
ed. "  The  one,"  he  said,  "  went  over  the  water,  the 
other,  through  it."  The  one  skimmed  the  waves 
like  a  duck,  the  other  buried  herself  in  them.  A 
captain  of  a  ship  once  told  me,  that  being  heavily 
laden,  and  having  very  bad  weather,  he  crossed  the 
6 


62 

Atlantic  with  his  vessel  under  icater.  Such  is  the 
import  of  the  phrase  to  which  Scapula  refers ;  and  I 
think  every  reader  will  see,  that  the  explanation 
contains  internal  evidence  of  iDeing  true.  But  to  say- 
that  the  word  haptize  means  "to  be  on  the  sea/' — 
why,  it  would  be  a  solecism, — a  strange,  uncouth 
expression,  which  even  a  Dean  Swift  could  not 
account  for. 

To  sustain  their  last  remark  about  being  on  the 
sea,  our  reviewers  turn  for  help  to  the  case  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar (Dan.  5:  21),  "whose  dwelling  was 
with  wild  asses,  and  who  was  fed  with  grass  like 
oxen."  They  quote  from  the  Septuagint  the  phrase 
(to  aomw  avrov  eBacf.rj^^  his  body  was  baptized.  They 
say,  "Will  Mr.  Hague  give  us  the  precise  miCaning 
of  the  Greek  verb  here?  "  I  answer,  certainly.  May 
I  first,  however,  ask  them  a  plainer  question?  Once, 
on  a  voyage  to  Nova  Scotia,  a  long  line  of  fog  lay 
before  us,  so  thick  that  when  the  sun  shone  on  it,  it 
resembled  somewhat  a  bank  of  snow.  Into  it  our 
vessel  plunged,  and  we  could  scarcely  see  her  length. 
"  Here  we  arc,"  says  one,  "  dipped  in  fog."  "  Yes," 
replies  another,  "thoroughly  buried."  Erelong  we 
emerged  into  sunlight  again,  and  it  seemed  like  the 
rolling  up  of  a  curtain  from  before  us.  Will  the 
gentlemen  please  to  tell  us  the  meaning  of  the  Eng- 
lish words  "  dipped  "  and  "  buried,"  in  this  instance? 
The  use  of  them  was  most  simple  and  natural.  In 
a  dense  dew,  like  that  which  is  common  in  the  East, 
and  to  which,  in  the  Scriptures,  there  is  frequent 
allusion,  there  may  be  as  real  an  immersion,  consid- 
ering that  it  completely  surrounds  and  covers  one, 
as  if  a  man  were  standing  on  the  bottom  of  a  lake. 
The  difference  is,  that  in  the  latter  case,  immersion, 
if  long  continued,  would  be  droivning;  and  in  the 
former,  the  watery  particles  are  so  rare,  as  to  allow 
of  breathing.  For  a  king  to  be  driven  from  his 
palace,  to  pass  the  night  with  the  beasts  of  the  field, 
amidst  cold  Eastern  dews,  would  be  near  akin  to 


63 

dying.  His  suffering  from  the  dew  which  enveloped 
him,  is  several  times  spoken  of;  and  he  would 
doubtless  use  a  strong  expression  to  denote  its  sever- 
ity, but  not  dro2viimg,  which  my  reviewers  seem  so 
constantly  to  associate  with  immersion.  I  reply, 
therefore,  unhesitatingly,  that  tlie  phrase  quoted 
above,  means,  that  after  being  driven  from  his  pal- 
ace, where  he  had  been  surrounded  with  luxuries, 
the  king's  body  was  immersed  in  chilUng  dews.  To 
him  Milton's  phrase  would  apply  strongly, — 

"  a  cold  shuddering  dew 

Dips  me  all  o'er." 

But  then,  our  version  renders  the  phrase  in  ques- 
tion, "'his  body  was  ivet  with  the  dew  of  heaven." 
Our  authors  add,  "  or  sprinkled."  This  last  is  gra- 
tuitous, and  not  the  specific  meaning  of  the  sacred 
writer.  If  immersed  in  dew,  he  was  of  course  wet ; 
but  "sprinkling"  is  another  thing.  The  first  is 
involved  by  implication,  and  limited  by  the  literal^ 
meaning  of  bapto ;  the  second  is  not  in  the  word. 
This  case  admirably  illustrates  what  I  have  said 
above,  touching  the  limitation  of  those  meanings 
which  exist  only  by  implication.  The  reviewers 
verify  a  statement  which  I  made  before,  that  if  a 
foreigner  were  learning  English,  and  would  follow 
out  their  principles  of  interpretation,  he  would  say, 
that  the  word  dip^  in  the  above  line  from  Milton, 
means  to  '•  sprinkle!^''  If  that  meaning  be  given  to 
the  Greek  word,  in  the  same  way  it  must  be  given 
to  the  English ;  and  this,  to  such  men  as  Johnson, 
Webster,  and  our  mighty  host  of  English  lexicogra- 
phers, would  have  been  a  new  and  remarkable 
discovery. 

In  closing  their  remarks  on  Principles  of  Philology, 
the  authors  state  another  principle,  as  being  involved 
in  what  I  have  said.  They  present  this  more  accu- 
rately than  they  did  the  first.  Still,  it  needs  a  little 
modification,   in  order   that  it   truly   represent  my 


64 

view.  They  say,  "  The  principle  of  philology,  then, 
involved  in  his  assertion,  is  this,  that  words  must 
dqtermine  their  sense  by  their  own  force,  or  there  is 
no  clue  to  the  author's  meaning."  It  should  be 
rather  expressed  thus :  The  native  force,  the  literal 
sense,  of  ivords  {it  nb  or  voiced  from  the  context^,  Qiiust 
be  distinctly  understood,  before  there  can  be  any  cer- 
tainty of  obtaining  an  author^ s  meaniiig.  This  prin- 
ciple strikes  at  the  root  of  their  mode  of  interpreta- 
tion. Tliey  say,  "  let  us  bring  this  principle  to  the 
test.  Take  the  English  word  bar,  which  means,  a 
rail  thrown  across  a  passage, — an  enclosure  in  a 
tavern, — any  obstruction, — an  enclosure  in  a  court, 
— an  association  of  lawyers, — a  line  in  music,  &c. 
All  these  meanings  attach  to  the  word.  Now  read 
the  folio wijig  line,  and  say  whether  the  word  deter- 
mines the  sense  by  its  own  force : 

'  Must  I  new  bars  to  my  own  joys  create?'  " 

Their  position  is,  that  there  is  no  difficulty  in  getting 
at  the  author's  meaning,  and  yet  that  i\\Q  force  of  the 
u'ord  does  not  show  which  of  all  these  meanings  to 
select !  What  an  extraordinary  statement  is  thi^, — 
as  it  seems  to  me,  directly  in  the  face  of  self-evident 
truth.  We  admit  that  there  is  no  difficulty  in  getting 
at  the  meaning;  but  it  is  because  the  mind  sees 
instantly  the  true  literal  sense  of  the  word  bars, 
which  in  this  line  borrows  no  new  meaning  from  the 
context.  The  instance  admirably  suits  my  purpose; 
for  though  new  senses  may  have  been  added  to  the 
word,  and  many  more  may  be  added  in  the  course 
of  centuries,  yet  the  original,  literal  sense  of  the  word 
has  never  been  displaced.  To  this,  therefore,  the 
mind  always  recurs  first,  and,  if  the  word  is  not 
changed  by  the  context,  always  adheres  to  it.  The 
literal  sense  is  the  light  to  guide  us  in  all  new  appli- 
cations of  the  term.  AYithout  knowing  this,  we 
cannot  get  along.  This  always  involves  the  idea  of 
an  obstruction.     Johnson's  first  definition  is,  "a  piece 


65 

of  wood  laid  across  a  passage,  to  hinder  entrance." 
2j  a  boltj — 3,  any  obstacle.  Having  the  literal  sense, 
we  need  no  dictionary  to  enable  us  to  understand  the 
figures  which  arise  from  it.  These  explain  them- 
selves. 

Now  suppose,  that  what  our  reviewers  say  has 
happened  to  the  word  baptism  among  the  Greeks, 
had  happened  to  the  word  bars  among  ourselves ; 
that  is,  that  the  original  and  literal  meaning  had 
been  '•'•  displaced^ ^  by  another,  and  in  that  way  '-'lostP 
Well,  which  of  the  other  meanings  shall  we  take  to 
fill  the  place  of  the  original,  the  primary  meaning, 
which  is  gone,  dead  and  buried?  Suppose,  then, 
that  the  "enclosure  in  a  tavern"  comes  to  be  first 
in  order.  The  word  bars  suggests  that  idea,  as  its 
leading  meaning.  As  the  place  referred  to  is  one  of 
hilarity,  where  men  generally  resort,  to  obtain  what 
they  consider  the  means  of  enjoyment,  the  first 
thought  of  a  reader,  in  looking  at  the  line  before  us, 
would  be,  that  by  "new  bars"  the  author  meant 
neio  aids  to  mirth^  and  spoke  of  creating  new  means 
of  enjoyment.  This  would  be  just  the  reverse  of 
the  real  meaning,  as  we  now  understand  it.  Or 
suppose,  in  place  of  the  old  literal  meaning,  others 
which  are  mentioned,  such  as  an  enclosure  in  a 
court,  or  place  of  justice,  or  an  association  of  lawyers, 
came  to  be  enthroned.  Then  the  first  idea  which 
the  line  before  us  would  suggest,  as  the  author's 
meaning,  would  be,  must  I  new  means  of  protection 
to  my  own  joys  create?  Or  take  another  case,  and 
let  a  line  in  music  come  in  place  of  the  primary- 
meaning;  the  reader  then  would  at  once  conclude 
that  the  author  meant  to  ask,  whether  he  must  add 
new  acquisitions  in  music  to  the  joys  which  he 
already  possessed.  Such  would  be  the  effect  of 
destroying  th'e  literal  meaning,  or  keeping  it  out  of 
sight.  The  word  bars,  in  the  quoted  line,  by  its  own 
force^  determines  the  sense.  How  do  we  know, 
without  any  difficulty,  that  it  means  obstacles'?  Sim- 
6* 


66 

ply  because  we  know  that  the  original,  literal  sense 
has  never  been  lost.  That  has  the  precedence,  and 
to  violate  the  rule  which  I  have  quoted  from  Ernesti 
concerning  it,  is  to  turn  order  into  confusion,  and  the 
beautiful  classifications  and  arrangements  of  science, 
into  an  indiscriminate  ruin. 
To  show  this,  let  us  make  an 


On  the  principles  of  philology  advocated  by  our 
authors,  how  easy  it  would  be  to  prove  that  our 
Lord  enjoined  no  specific  act  in  the  Lord's  supper, 
when  he  said  of  the  bread,  "  Take,  ea^."  Suppose  a 
man  should  say,  that  like  the  ancient  shew-bread,  it 
was  designed  to  be  beheld  by  the  people,  and  to  be 
set  on  the  table  before  the  Lord,  but  not  to  be  re- 
ceived into  the  mouth ;  he  could  defend  himself  by 
as  good  an  argument  as  that  which  sustains  "any  use 
of  water"  as  baptism.  Like  our  authors,  he  might 
begin  by  descanting  on  the  slight  stress  which  the 
gospel  lays  on  rites  and  forms.  Having  thus  pre- 
pared the  way  to  demand  a  good  deal  of  latitude,'  he 
might  proceed  with  a  criticism  on  the  meaning  of 
the  word  eat,  and  say,  "the  question  before  us  is,^ 
has  this  word  a  fixed  and  invariable  meaning?" 
To  this,  he  would  answer  in  the  negative,  observing 
first,  that  words  often  change  their  meaning,  and 
proceed,  secondly,  to  show,  by  quotations,  in  what 
various  senses  the  word  is  used,  in  all  writings,  both 
sacred  and  profane.  Here  he  would  get  the  lexicog- 
raphers on  his  side,  with  equal  ease.  Li  Webster's 
dictionary,  the  fourth  meaning  given,  is,  to  enjoy; 
but  evidently,  there  are  different  modes  of  enjoyment 
practicable,  in  this  case.  Enjoy  is  a  generic  term, 
and  leaves  us  at  liberty  to  do  with  the  bread  what 
we  may  deem  convenient  or  instructive.  We  may 
enjoy  it  by  touching  it,  or  beholding  it,  or  both, 
without  receiving  it  into  the  mouth.  Besides,  this 
would  be  more  in  accordance  with  the  liberal  genius 


67 

of  the  Christian  dispensation,  and  also  with  the 
sacramental  meaning  of  the  rite.  The  rite  itself 
signifies  our  reception  of  the  atonement,  and  this  is 
often  expressed  by  looking  or  beholding.  The  lan- 
guage of  the  Scriptures  is,  ^^  Look  unto  me,  and  be 
ye  saved;"  and  faith  is  explained  as  look  big  unto 
Christ,  as  the  Israelites  looked  for  healing  to  the 
brazen  serpent  set  upon  a  pole.  Then,  again,  as  a 
seventh  sense,  Webster  states  believing  to  be  the 
Scripture  meaning  of  the  word  eat.  From  all  this, 
it  must  be  evident,  that  this  term  "has  not  a  fixed 
and  invariable  meaning," — that  it  is  used  in  numer- 
ous senses, — that  enjoying  the  bread  in  any  mode 
answers  the  end  of  the  precept, — that  merely  behold- 
ing agrees  with  its  spiritual  signification, — that  this 
bears  an  analogy  to  the  manner  in  which  the  shew- 
bread  was  used  in  divine  worship  of  old, — that  the 
process  of  eating  by  receiving  food  into  the  mouth  is 
less  in  keeping  with  the  "  purely  spiritual  character" 
of  our  religion,  and  less  adapted  to  the  sick  chamber, 
where  a  person  may  be  too  weak  to  obey  such  a 
command  with  composure  and  profit.  He  who 
insists  that  the  bread  must  be  chewed  and  swal- 
lowed, makes  it  a  earned  ordinance ;  and  he  must 
prove  tiiat  the  word  eat  means  this,  and  nothing 
ELSE,  which  cannot  be  done.  So,  following  in  the 
track  of  our  authors,  and  enlarging  on  every  point, 
with  ample  proofs  and  citations,  we  could  make  it 
as  plain  that  the  enacting  terms,  in  the  command  to 
celebrate  the  supper,  enjoin  no  specific  act,  as  they 
have,  that  the  baptismal  law  enjoins  no  specific  use 
of  water.  The  principles  of  reasoning  are  precisely 
the  same,  and  accomplish  as  much  in  one  case  as 
they  do  in  the  other;  and  lie  who  cannot  see  their 
fallacy,  as  our  authors  have  urged  them,  would  be 
prepared,  if  circumstances  were  favorable,  to  follow 
his  teachers  in  sweeping  away  tlie  Lord's  supper  out 
of  the  church,  as  they  fain  would  the  primitive 
baptism.     History  justifies  me  in  saying,  that  this 


68 

last  expression  is  no  mere  assertion,  made  for  the 
occasion;  for  Romish  writers  have  used  this  same 
sort  of  reasoning,  to  draw  from  Christ's  words  at  the 
tahle  a  sanction  for  turning  the  supper  into  an  offer- 
ing unto  God,  and  presenting  the  elements  as  a 
sacrifice^  by  the  hands  of  a  priest.  Dr.  Brett  takes 
the  verb  7:^0/0  (tto/oj),  which  our  Saviour  used  in  the 
command,  ''  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me," — 
a  verb  used  in  a  great  many  applications, — and 
shows,  from  the  Greek  classics,  and  various  texts  in 
the  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament  (from  which 
the  evangelists  usually  quoted),  that  poio  has  the 
sense  of  offerings — presenting  an  oblation  to  God.  He 
says  that  Dr.  Hicks,  in  his  book  on  the  Christian 
priesthood  (p.  58),  exhibits  this  in  a  very  satisfactory 
manner.  He  quotes  Herodotus  (lib.  I,  c.  132),  say- 
ing, ''  without  one  of  the  magi,  it  is  not  lawful  for 
them  TioiEiadai^ — to  offer  a  sacrifice."  So,  Ex.  29:  36, 
Thou  shalt  offer  {nonjasig)  a  bullock.  So  also,  in 
vs.  38,  39,  Lev.  4:  20,  and  other  places,  "  the  word 
is  used  for  offering  a  sacrifice."  Now,  how  shall  we 
treat  the  argument  of  these  doctors'?  I  would  treat 
it  precisely  as  I  have  that  of  Messrs.  Cooke  and 
Towne.  I  would  lay  down  such  plain  principles  as 
I  have  quoted  from  Ernesti,  on  which  we  are  obliged 
to  act,  in  interpreting  the  language  of  every-day  life ; 
I  would  show  the  folly  of  departing  from  them,  and 
call  upon  the  Romish  writers  to  abjure  the  maxims 
of  common  sense,  by  which  they  expect  other  people 
to  interpret  their  words,  when  they  wish  to  be 
understood,  or  else  to  abjure  their  false  interpreta- 
tions. But  how  would  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne 
treat  these  writers  in  an  argument?  Ay,  "there's 
the  rub."  I  doubt  not,  however,  they  would  come 
to  the  same  philological  grounds  which  I  now  occu- 
py, but  in  the  meanwhile,  would  wish  to  lay  these 
"Hints  to  an  Inquirer"  on  the  shelf  But  what  if 
the  doctors  should  find  it,  take  it  down,  sift  it  tho- 
roughly,   and   use   the    authors'    principles   against 


69 

themselves?  That  would  be  ''turning  the  tables" 
mightily,  and  I  only  hope  that  if  our  friends  ever 
get  into  such  a  controversy,  their  antagonists  will 
not  be  reminded  of  "  the  Hints,"  or  of  this  Rejoinder. 
Convinced  as  I  am  that  the  practice  of  sprinkling 
was  introduced  by  the  Latin  church,  knowing  as  I 
do  that  her  learned  historians  and  teachers  aver  that 
she  did  it  by  authority  committed  unto  her,  and  not 
on  the  ground  of  scriptural  precept  or  precedent, 
asserted  as  this  is  by  all  the  Oriental  church,  who 
retain  immersion,  conceded  as  it  is  by  the  most  intel- 
ligent Protestants  of  Western  Europe,  it  certainly  is 
no  mere  assumption,  to  say  that  sprinkling  as  a 
mode  of  baptism  is  a  relic  of  Popery.  The  earliest 
of  the  Reformers  knew  it,   for   Luther  wished  to 

RESTORE    IMMERSION,     BUT    FAILED.       I    Spcak    this    with 

emphasis,  because  T  have  shown,  that  it  is  not  I  who 
say  this,  but  that  it  is  uttered  by  the  best  possible 
authorities.  If  so,  this  is  the  weak  point  of  Protest- 
antism. It  is  a  token  of  remembrance  which  she 
has  accepted  from  Popery.  And  in  a  close  contest 
with  the  Papists,  it  becomes  a  rock  on  which  the 
Protestant  must  fall  and  be  broken.  The  signs  of 
the  times  indicate  that  this  momentous  controversy 
will  wax  warm  in  tliis  country ;  and  if  the  younger 
clergy  are  not  driven  to  occupy  the  firm  ground  of 
the  Baptists,  one  of  two  things  will  follow.  Either 
they  will  embrace  Puseyism  (as  many  are  now  do- 
ing), which  is  essentially  Romanism,  setting  church- 
authority  above  the  Bible,  or  else  will  embrace 
Rationalism,  the  opposite  extreme,  which  sets  reason 
above  the  Bible,  and  proclaims  an  utter  indifference 
to  all  rites  and  ordinances.  Here  the  Baptists  stand 
on  solid  rock.  They  do  not,  in  any  point,  admit  the 
supremacy  of  the  church,  or  the  supremacy  of  un- 
aided reason,  but  of  the  "  Bible  alone."  They 
accept  no  rites  except  what  are  commanded,  and 
they  administer  these  in  exact  conformity  with  the 
enacting  terms,  "immerse  —  eat  —  drink."      They 


70 

have  in  ages  past  resisted  unto  death  the  least  addi- 
tion^ when  made  by  law,  as  binding  on  the  con- 
science; and  on  the  other  hand,  they  refuse  to  admit 
the  least  diminution.  Church-authority  has  added, 
and  Rationalism  has  diminished,  but  they  say  with 
the  Prophet  of  God,  "thy  law  is  the  truth."  Re- 
move the  sanctions  of  divine  command,  and  they 
care  nothing  for  the  ordinances  themselves.  They 
would  not  accept  them  from  church  authorit^r  on  the 
ground  of  venerableness,  nor  from  Rationalism  on 
the  ground  of  fitness,  and  v/hether  civil  government 
be  the  organ  of  the  one  or  the  other,  they  will  not 
accept  them  from  it  as  things  of  expediency.  But 
when  an  observance  bears  the  seal  of  Heaven,  they 
place  obedience  among  the  moral  duties,  as  springing 
from  that  love,  which  the  spiritual  and  eternal  law 
enjoins.  "  Here  is  firm  footing  —  all  is  sea  besides." 
Hence,  as  1  see  the  elements  gathering  for  a  keen 
moral  trial  of  every  church  and  every  system,  I  feel 
truly  sorry  for  that  Protestant  ministry,  which  pro- 
claims the  Bible  as  the  only  rule  of  faith,  and  yet 
feels  obliged  to  defend  the  practice  which  is  the 
chief  memorial  of  a  power  that  early  arose  within 
the  church  itself,  rivalling  the  authority  of  Christ, 
assuming  his  prerogatives,  wresting  the  sceptre  from 
his  hand,  and  changing  the  times^  seasons^  and  laws 
of  his  sovereign  appointment. 

Having  now  examined  the  most  prominent  and 
important  parts  of  the  Rejoinder,  I  proceed, 

in.  To  review  the  other  sections  in  the  order  of 
their  occurrence. 

THE    INTRODUCTION 

is  chiefly  occupied  in  defending  the  refusal  of  the 
writers  to  designate  the  Baptists  by  their  accustomed 
name.  I  did  not  regard  this  as  a  matter  of  any  im- 
portance, except  as  the  indication  of  a  hostile  feeling, 
quite  uncongenial  with  the  nature  of  that  charity 
which  does  much  to  "clear  the  mental  eye,"  and  to 


71 

sweeten  the  tones  of  controversy.  It  is  in  vain  to 
say,  that  the  word  ''  Immersers,"  used  instead  of  the 
common  appellation  Baptists,  does  not  "  of  its  own 
force  carry  contempt  with  it."  The  same  might  be 
said  of  the  term  "  sprinklers,"  if  apphed  to  Congre- 
gationahsts,  as  it  exactly  designates  their  practice; 
but  would  they  not  regard  it  as  an  uncourteous  thing 
in  us  to  substitute  this  in  common  speech  for  the 
name  which  they  have  chosen  ?  Undoubtedly,  ordi- 
nary feelings  of  propriety  would  forbid  it,  and  on 
the  ground  of  courtesy,  we  follow  usage  in  denomi- 
nating them  Fedobapiists,  although  we  do  not  be- 
lieve that  such  a  name  properly  belongs  to  them.  A 
pedagogue  is  a  teacher  of  youth,  and  a  Pedobaptist 
is  a  baptizer  of  youth.  Many  youth  who  are  capa- 
ble of  faith  and  conversion,  are  baptized  among  our- 
selves, but,  in  our  view,  the  sprinkling  of  infants  is 
notVedobapiism.  The  Greeks  would  call  it  brep>ho- 
rantism.  Strictly  speaking,  we  are  Pedobaptists  our- 
selves, as  is  often  most  touchingly  shown,  when  we 
publicly  dedicate  to  Christ  those  interesting  youth 
who  give  evidence  of  having  been  born  again,  and 
ask  for  baptism  from  a  sense  of  love  and  duty. 
Nevertheless,  as  the  application  of  names  is  not  the 
turning  point  of  this  discussion,  Ave  choose  in  this,  to 
follow  prevailing  custom,  and  to  make  no  unneces- 
sary change. 

What  good  can  the  authors  before  us  expect  to 
gain  by  the  course  they  are  pursuing  in  the  change 
of  denominational  names?  To  convince  us  of  our 
error?  Impossible;  they  know  that  a  want  of  cour- 
tesy does  not  tend  to  conviction.  To  excite  amongst 
their  own  churches  sectarian  antipathies  against  us? 
This  they  may  do ;  it  is  the  effect  most  likely  to  fol- 
low; but  whether  in  the  end  that  would  prove  to  be 
a  real  good  may  admit  of  a  doubt.  Over  such  a 
result  the  more  candid  and  pious  amongst  tliem- 
selves  would  be  the  chief  mourners.  But  where 
piety  has  only  a  feeble  influence,  a  common  manli- 


72 

ness  of  character  should  snfTice  to  guide  one  in  the 
selection  of  appellatives  for  large  bodies  of  men. 
Even  to  Unitarians,  Avho  differ  from  ns  in  a  more 
important  point  than  is  involved  in  this  question,  we 
yield  the  name  they  choose  for  themselves,  although 
it  implies  that  we  do  not  hold  the  true  doctrine  of 
the  divine  unity.  But  in  addressing  them,  we  reason 
about  the  doctrine  itself,  not  the  merits  of  the  name. 
When  the  word  Congregation alist  was  assumed  as 
the  designation  of  a  sect,  it  implied  that  Episco- 
palians and  Presbyterians  had  not  just  notions  of 
church  government,  yet  the  name  was  generally 
conceded.  Nothing  but  a  spirit  of  bigotry  could  in- 
duce an  opposite  course,  and  we  should  ever  obey 
the  precept,  "in  malice  be  ye  children,  but  in  under- 
standing be  men." 

In  their  defence,  the  writers  say  of  the  Baptists, 
"  so  strong  indeed  has  been  their  preference  for  im- 
merse as  a  substitute  for  baptize,  that  they  have 
found  it  needful  to  rend  the  Bible  Society,  and  to 
procure  a  new  translation  of  the  inspired  volume, 
for  the  single  purpose  of  introducing  their  favorite 
word,"  It  becomes  me  to  admit,  that,  from  their 
connection  with  an  editor's  office,  my  F.eviewcrs 
have  more  means  of  learning  the  ncics  of  the  day 
than  I  possess;  but  if  this  last  statement  about  a 
new  English  translation  be  a  fact,  I  am  quite  unfor- 
tunate in  never  having  heard  of  it  from  any  other 
source  than  this  Rejoinder.  Although  extensively 
acquainted  in  my  denomination,  I  have  never  heard 
of  a  council  or  convention  of  any  kind  being  called 
to  deliberate  on  such  a  project.  The  Rejoinder 
speaks  of  the  "  appearance  of  this  new  Bible  in  our 
city."  Here  I  plead  ignorance.  If  any  such  book 
is  in  Boston,  I  can  only  say,  I  have  not  yet  had  the 
advantage  of  reading  or  seeing  a  copy.  Moreover, 
if  it  be  here,  it  is  a  book  formed  by  individuals  with- 
out any  concurrence  of  the  denomination  as  such; 
and  whoever   the   translators   may   be,   they   have 


73 

doubtless  as  good  a  right  to  publish  their  version,  as 
Doddridge,  Campbell,  Macknight,  or  Professor  Stuart 
had  to  publish  theirs.  In  a  free  country,  there  can 
be  no  limitation  of  such  works,  except  the  want  of 
readers  and  purchasers. 

The  reason  why  a  large  number  of  Baptists 
seceded  from  the  American  Bible  Society,  and  formed 
a  new  association  in  New  York,  called  the  American 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  was  the  decree  of  the 
Board  of  Managers  of  the  former  institution,  direct- 
ing all  missionary  translators  who  should  receive 
their  patronage,  to  make  the  English  version  their 
standard,  so  that  all  denominations  of  evangelical 
Christians  who  use  the  English  version,  might  be 
satisfied  with  the  translation.  The  American  Bap- 
tist Board  of  Foreign  Missions  had  long  before  di- 
rected their  missionaries  to  have  no  standard  excejit 
the  inspired  original^  and  to  transfer  into  Pagan  lan- 
guages no  Greek  or  Hebrew  words,  which  would 
admit  of  being  plainly  translated.  In  the  formation 
of  the  English  version,  king  James  commanded  "  the 
old  ecclesiastical  words  to  be  kept."  In  the  forma- 
tion of  new  versions  for  heathen  millions,  the  Bap- 
tists said,  "let  the  translator  be  competent,  and  let 
not  his  conscience  be  fettered."  This  difference 
caused  the  difficulty,  and  the  Baptists  took  their 
position  in  the  spirit  of  Christian  love,  declaring  that 
the  whole  world  ought  to  have  the  Bible  "  unmuti- 
lated  and  undisguised." 

Although  in  the  English  version,  important  im- 
provements might  be  suggested,  yet  since  it  has 
become  venerable  by  age,  identified  with  our  na- 
tional literature,  and  especially,  since  in  this  land 
we  enjoy  abundant  aids  to  lead  us  to  a  knowledge 
of  its  meaning,  the  Baptists  at  large  would  doubtless 
prefer  to  let  it  stand  as  it  is,  than  to  lack  the  benefit 
of  a  national  Bible,  a  book  of  common  reference  in 
every  sanctuary  and  every  family.  But  is  this  any 
reason  why  we  should  carry  its  imperfections  into 
7 


74 

those  new  versions  made  for  millions  who  have 
never  seen  the  Scriptures  ?  And  as  to  the  Greek 
word  baptizo^  is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  greater  part  of 
the  Christians  of  Asia  and  of  Africa,  and  nearly  half 
of  the  Protestant  Christians  in  Europe,  have  always 
used  versions  in  which  it  is  translated  hy  a  word 
signifying  immerse  1  Is  it  not  so  rendered  in  the 
Arabic,  Etliiopic,  Egyptian  and  Armenian  versions, 
in  the  old  Gothic  of  the  4th  century,  and  in  the  Ger- 
man, Danish,  Swedish,  and  Dutch  Bibles  of  modern 
times?  It  is  acknowledged  without  controversy. 
With  such  a  powerful  array  of  precedents,  why 
should  the  Baptists  be  blamed  for  not  being  wiUing 
to  make  their  new  translations  conform  to  the  Eng- 
lish standard,  while  the  Catholics  are  not  exempt 
from  censure  for  pronouncing  the  Latin  Vulgate  in- 
fallible ? 

After  their  introduction,  the  gentlemen  proceed  to 
speak  of  the  "important  matters  in  their  book  which 
I  have  left  untouched."  I  proceed,  therefore,  to  no- 
tice what  they  say  on 

ARGUMENTS  OMITTED  IN  THE  FORMER  REPLY. 

They  say,  "  the  reader  will  please  to  notice  that  the 
points  of  our  argument  which  Mr.  Hague  has  omit- 
ted, are  such,  that  if  they  are  conceded,  the  question 
is  settled  against  immersion.  These  points  are,  first, 
our  whole  argument  drawn  from  the  signijication  of 
the  rite.  This  argument  we  consider  of  itself  deci- 
sive of  the  whole  question ;  and  notwithstanding 
what  may  be  said  on  other  paints,  while  this  argu- 
ment remains  unscathed,  we  hold  our  ground  firmly 
against  immersion." 

The  only  reason  of  my  devoting  so  large  a  pro- 
portion of  my  Review  to  a  discussion  of  the  meaning 
of  the  word  baptize.^  was  the  obvious  fact,  that  on 
that  meaning  the  argument  turns.  If  that  word 
means  what  my  Reviewers  say  it  does,  the  question 
is  settled,  there  is  no  law  for  immersion,  and  I  need 


75 

no  further  reasoning  to  lead  me  to  practise  sprink- 
ling. If  the  word  has  the  meaning  which  I  attribute 
to  it,  there  can  be  no  sound  argument  for  sprinkling. 
If  I  am  correct  in  philology,  the  question  is  virtually 
decided.  This,  I  think,  must  be  evident  to  my  Re- 
viewers. They  had  commenced  the  discussion  by  a 
chapter  on  "  the  meaning  of  the  word,"  saying,  "  the 
argument  for  immersion  \s  founded  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  the  words  baptism,  and  immersion,  carry 
the  same  idea."  On  page  10,  they  say,  "  what  is  the 
conclusion  ?  Necessarily,  that  these  words  {bapto 
and  baptizo)  have  not  a  fixed  and  invariable  mean- 
ing—  that  they  do  not  of  themselves  determine  any 
one  particular  way  of  applying  a  liquid."  In  con- 
nection with  this,  they  had  referred  to  the  testimony 
of  the  Greeks  (page  17),  declaring  that  they  do  noi 
always  practise  immersion,  and  are  "  against  the 
principle  that  immersion  is  essential  to  baptism." 
In  opening  my  Review,  I  commended  the  author  for 
"  coming  to  the  point "  '•  because  he  takes  a  clear 
and  decided  position,  and  risks  his  whole  cause  upon 
a  single  issue."  There  were  the  best  of  reasons,  then, 
for  my  laying  the  chief  stress  on  that  point.  But  in 
the  first  notice  of  my  Review,  which  a  friend  pointed 
out  to  me  in  the  Puritan,  it  vvas  said,  ''  thks  contro- 
versy does  not^  as  Mr.  Hague  observes,  turn  upon  the 
meaning  of  the  icord^  but  upon  the  signification  of 
the  rite."  This  looked  as  if  the  gentlemen  were  not 
willing  fully  to  trust  their  own  arguments  on  the 
meaning  of  the  word.  If  those  arguments  had  been 
sound,  they  would  have  been  decisive.  There  would 
have  been  no  need  of  shifting  their  position  from 
them  to  any  other  ground.  But  they  are  not  willing 
to  rest  their  cause  on  them.  Yv'^eil,  let  us  take  them 
at  their  word.  They  consider  their  argument  "  from 
the  signification  of  the  rite,  decisive  of  the  whole 
question."  I  will  show  that  this  argument  is  invalid, 
that  it  amounts  to  nothing,  and  that  they  are  forced 
back  to  rest,  after  all,  on  the  meaning  of  the  word. 


76 

As  the  authors  deem  this  matter  so  important,  let 
ns  look  closely  at  their  own  statement  of  their  posi- 
tion. The3^  say  on  page  21,  "  Our  object  is  here  to 
show,  in  brief,  the  close  connection  between  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit,  and  baptism  with  water,  and 
that  the  one  is  a  symbol  of  the  other.  Now  if  bap- 
tism by  water  is  -an  emblem  of  baptism  by  the  Spirit, 
we  have  only  to  look  into  the  Bible,  and  see  in  what 
way  we  are  brought  into  contact  with  the  influences 
of  the  Spirit.  If  we  are  currently  represented  as 
being  put  into  the  Spirit,  or  plunged  into  the  Spirit, 
we  concede  the  whole  matter  in  question  ;  and  if,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  Spirit  is  currently  said  to  be 
poured  out  upon  us,  or  sprinkled  upon  us,  then  you 
must  concede  that  pouring  or  sprinkling  is  the  more 
significant  way."  Having  quoted  several  passages 
of  Scripture,  on  page  22,  they  proceed  to  say,  "We 
have  thus  given  a  few  specimens,  to  show  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  said  'to  fall'  upon  men,  to  be  'poured 
out'  upon  them.  And  it  is  in  reference  to  this 
subject,  that  God  promises  '  to  sprinkle  clean  water 
upon  us,'  and  that  his  grace  shall  '  come  down  as 
rain  upon  the  mown  grass  and  as  showers  which 
water  the  earth.'  It  is  of  no  consequence,  however, 
as  to  the  point  before  us,  whether  these  things  are 
said  in  connection  with  baptism  or  not.  They  are 
brought  simply  to  show  in  what  manner  the  Scrip- 
tures speak  of  the  communication  of  the  Spirit's 
influences.  Now,  then,  if  the  thing  signified  is  uni- 
formly represented  as  sprinkled  or  poured  out  upon 
'the  subject,  that  Avhich  signifies  it  may  be  pouring 
or  sprinkling." 

Now  it  need  not  take  a  much  longer  time  to  dis- 
play the  weakness  of  all  this,  than  to  state  the  argu- 
ment itself  Nevertheless,  I  will  pay  it  due  respect, 
by  giving  it  ample  space. 

(1.)    The  argument  assumes  what  is  not  true. 

(2.)  Besides  this  assu.mption,  the  principle  of  the 
argument  is  fallacious. 


77     • 

I.  The  argument  assumes,  that  the  Spirit  ''  is 
uniformly  represented  as  sprinkled  or-  poured  out, 
upon  the  subject;"  and  as  it  is  said,  in  order  to  as- 
certain the  mode  of  baptism,  "  we  have  only  to  look 
into  the  Bible,  and  see  in  xohat  icay  ice  are  brought 
into  contact  loith  the  influences  of  the  Spirit^  let  us 
follow  out  this  plan.  If  we  are  now  on  the  right 
road,  let  us  see  where  it  will  lead  us. 

1.  In  the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  12:  13, 
Paul  says  to  the  church,  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we 
all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or 
Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free ;  and  have 
been  all  made  to  d?^ink  into  one  Spirit.  Here  we  see 
that  the  way  in  which  ''we  are  brought  into  contact 
with  the  influences  of  the  Spirit"  is  by  drinking. 
This  expression  is  in  exact  accordance  with  the 
words  of  our  Lord,  John  7  :  37 — 39  ;  "  If  any  man 
thirst,  let  him  come  unto  me  and  drink.  This 
spake  he  of  the  Spirit,  which  they  that  believe  on 
him  should  receive."  See  also  John  4:  13 — 14.  If, 
therefore,  the  candidate,  receiving  from  the  minister 
a  glass  of  water,  should  drink  it,  that  would  be  bap- 
tism. As  the  word  baptize  itself  does  not  determine 
mode,  we  are  as  much  at  liberty  to  select  this  as  any 
other.  As  it  suits  the  signification  of  baptism  so 
well,  as  it  is  mentioned  by  Paul  in  the  above  verse, 
in  connection  with  the  word  baptize,  it  could  not  be 
objected  to  as  unscriptural,  and  perhaps  by  many 
would  be  regarded  as  an  agreeable  improvement  on 
all  the  modes  at  present  practised.  As  it  is  common 
even  now  for  Pedobaptists  to  leave  the  choice  of 
mode  to  the  subject,  if  any  one  should  think  of  taking 
a  cup  of  water  as  baptism,  the  principle  here  proposed 
would  certainly  warrant  his  doing  so.  In  this  case, 
we  must  give  up  the  idea,  that  religious  baptism  is  to 
be  performed  but  once,  and  only  with  water  ;  we  are 
baptized  with  wine  every  time  we  receive  the  eucha- 
rist.  But  if  a  baptism  oiivaier  is  to  be  received  but 
once,  then  to  drink  of  a  cup  of  water  is,  on  this  prin- 
7# 


78 

ciple  of  interpretation,  perfectly  allowable.  T  appeal 
now  to  the  good  sense  of  every  reader  of  the  Scrip- 
tures —  Is  drinking  baptism  7  If  it  is,  may  it  not  be 
practised  when  preferred  7  If  it  is  not,  what  shall 
be  thought  of  the  principle  of  interpretation  which 
sanctions  it  7 

2.  In  the  gospel  of  John  (20:  22),  when  the  risen 
Saviour  appeared  among  his  disciples,  "  he  breathed 
on  them  and  saith  unto  them.  Receive  ye  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Here,  the  bringing  of  the  disciples  "into 
contact  with  the  influences  of  the  Spirit,"  is  repre- 
sented by  BREATHING.  A  similar  expression  is  found 
in  Ezekiel  37  :  9,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  ; 
Come  from  the  four  winds,  O  breath ;  and  breathe 
upon  these  slain  that  they  may  live."  This  repre- 
sentation has  doubtless  much  of  beauty  in  it,  for  as 
God  breathed  into  our  first  parent  the  breath  of 
natural  life,  so  he  breathes  into  his  new  moral  crea- 
tion the  breath  of  spiritual  life.  When  the  Catholic 
church  deemed  herself  at  liberty  to  choose  various 
modes  of  baptism,  breathing  on  the  subject  was  con- 
nected with  the  ordinance  as  an  appropriate  emblem. 
If  the  mode  of  baptism  is  now  to  be  ascertained  by 
only  looking  into  the  Bible,  to  "  see  in  what  way  we 
are  brought  into  contact  with  the  influences  of  the 
Spirit,"  then  we  see  presented  to  us  here  a  mode  re- 
markable for  its  simplicity  and  convenience,  adapted 
to  all  times,  to  all  places  and  conditions,  as  well  to 
the  wayside,  the  desert,  and  the  sick  chamber,  as  to 
the  river,  the  pool,  or  the  sanctuary.  It  can  be  prac- 
tised at  once,  in  all  circumstances  wherein  men  can 
draw  the  breath  of  life.  Nothing  could  be  more 
significant  of  the  influences  of  the  Spirit.  It  agrees 
exactly  with  the  word  commonly  used  by  the  church 
in  her  prayers  and  songs  in  relation  to  it. 

**  Inspire  our  souls  with  life  divine." 

If  we  are  at  liberty  to  select  modes  of  baptism,  the 
most  numerous  arguments  drawn  from  expediency 


79 

may  be  urged  in  behalf  of  this.  To  speak  in  the 
style  of  our  authors,  the  presumptive  evidence  is 
strongly  in  its  favor.  It  is  true,  the  apostles  were 
not  so  much  struck  with  its  ease  and  convenience  as 
to  be  inclined  to  adopt  it,  —  Philip  and  the  Eunuch 
waited  till  "  on  their  way  they  came  to  a  certain 
water,"  but  then  the  principle  of  interpretation  now 
in  view  allows  it.  Again  I  appeal  to  the  conscience 
and  judgment  of  the  reader,  while  I  ask, is  breathing 
baptism  ?  If  it  is,  why  should  it  not  be  practised  7 
If  it  is  not,  what  must  be  thought  of  the  principle 
which  establishes  it  as  a  scriptural  mode? 

3.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  represented  as  '^  a  mighty 
wind,"  and  the  fact  of  the  disciples  being  "brought 
into  contact  with  the  influences  of  the  Spirit,"  is 
represented  by  "blowing;"  for  it  is  said  (in  Acts  2: 
2,  4),  when  the  disciples  were  together,  "  suddenly 
there  came  a  sound  from  heaven  as  of  a  rushing, 
mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house  where  they 
were  sitting  —  and  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost."  There  may  be  said  to  be  an  obvious  agree- 
ment between  this  description  and  that  saying  of 
Christ  touching  the  Spirit's  influence,  "  the  wind 
hloioeth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the  sound 
thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh  and 
whither  it  goeth  ;  so  is  every  one  that  is  horyi  of  the 
Spirit.^''  In  accordance  with  this  figure  is  that  aspi- 
ration in  Canticles  4:  16,  "Awake,  O  north  wind, 
and.  come  thou  south,  bloiv  upon  my  garden,  that 
the  spices  thereof  may  flow  out."  Thus,  too,  a 
Christian  poet  prays, 

**  sweet  Spirit  come, 

Celestial  breeze,  no  longer  stay." 

As  "contact  with  the  Spirit's  influences"  is  repre- 
sented by  blou'i?ig,  it  follows,  according  to  the  prin- 
ciple in  question,  that  blowing  is  baptism.  If,  there- 
fore, a  candidate  were  placed  by  the  minister,  where 
a  current  of  strong  wind  could  rush  upon  him,  that 


m 

would  be  baptizing  him  in  a  way  as  truly  significant 
of  the  coming  of  the  Spirit,  as  any  other  suggested 
in  the  Bible.  The  baptismal  law  contained  in  the 
commission  does  not  expressly  mention  water  as  the 
element;  and  as  the  word  baptizo  itself  "  determines 
nothing  as  to  mode,"  but  leaves  us  to  infer  the  man- 
ner of  baptism  from  the  emblems  of  the  Spirit's  in- 
fluence, then  to  place  one  in  the  way  of  receiving 
the  force  of  ''a  rushing,  mighty  wind,"  would  be  to 
baptize  him  according  to  a  scriptural  precedent.  I 
appeal  again  to  the  good  sense  of  the  reader,  can  the 
bloiving  of  wind  confer  Christian  baptism  1  With 
your  eye  on  Christ's  baptism  and  on  apostolic  prac- 
tice, you  answer,  No,  it  cannot  be.  What  then  must 
be  thought  of  the  argument  which  involves  such  an 
idea? 

4.  Another  way  in  which  the  Scriptures  represent 
our  being  ''  brought  into  contact  with  the  influence 
of  the  Spirit  "  is  by  anointing.  Under  the  old  econ- 
omy, the  unction  or  application  of  oil  to  the  person, 
as  a  sign  of  consecration  or  purifying,  was  highly 
esteemed.  Hence  arose  the  frequent  and  happy 
allusions  to  anointing,  as  a  symbol  of  the  graces  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  In  the  61st  of  Isaiah,  the  prophet 
cries,  "  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  God  is  upon  me,  be- 
cause the  Lord  hath  anointed  me  to  preach  good 
tidings  unto  the  meek."  Using  the  same  figure, 
Paul  says  (2  Cor.  2  :  21,  22),  "  Now  he  which  es- 
tablisheth  us  with  you  in  Christ,  and  hath  anointed 
us,  is  God,  who  hath  also  sealed  us  and  given  us  the 
earnest  of  the  Spirit  in  our  hearts.  Another  apostle 
says  to  Christians  at  large  (1  John  2:20),  "Ye 
have  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One^  and  ye  know 
all  things."  Anointing,  having  been  of  old  a  sign  of 
purifying,  is  thus  alluded  to  as  expressive  of  the 
soul's  contact  with  the  Spirit's  purifying  influences. 
These  are  the  true  "  oil  of  gladness."  Correspond- 
ing to  this,  is  the  expression,  familiar  to  every  reader 
of  the  Scriptures,  I  will  ^^z/^  my  Spirit  upon  them. 


81 

In  Numbers  11 :  17,  it  is  said,  for  instance,  "I  will 
take  of  the  Spirit  that  is  upon  thee  and  put  it  upon 
them."  Now  when  anointing  was  an  appointed 
sign  of  purifying,  the  manner  of  applying  it  to  the 
person  was  not  left  indeterminate.  In  all  the  annals 
of  the  world  was  there  never  such  a  thing  heard  of, 
as  a  legislator  leaving  a  people  to  infer  the  proper 
sign,  from  his  expressing  what  he  wished  to  be 
signified.  In  the  commands  of  God,  perspicuity  is  a 
distinguishing  feature.  In  Leviticus  14:  26,  &c.,  it 
was  said,  "  The  priest  shall  pour  of  the  oil  into  the 
palm  of  his  own  left  hand  ;  and  the  priest  shall 
sprinkle  with  his  right  finger  some  of  the  oil  that  is 
in  his  left  hand  seven  times  before  the  Lord.  And 
the  priest  shall  put  of  the  oil  that  is  in  his  hand 
upon  the  tip  of  the  right  ear  of  him  that  is  to  be 
cleansed,  and  upon  the  thumb  of  his  right  hand,  and 
upon  the  great  toe  of  his  right  foot,  upon  the  place 
of  the  blood  of  the  trespass  offering.  And  the  rest  of 
the  oil  that  is  in  the  priest's  hand  he  shall  put  upon 
the  head  of  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed,  to  make  an 
atonement  for  him  before  the  Lord."  Behold  what 
clearness  !  Every  essential  act  is  specified.  This  is 
the  fitting  style  for  legislation.  The  Jewish  priest 
was  not  left  in  doubt  about  the  manner  of  applying 
the  holy  unction.  He  was  not  told  that  the  rite  sig- 
nified purifying,  and  that  he  might  select  any  mode 
which  he,  or  the  subject,  pleased.  But  if  this  sort  of 
indefiniteness  appears  in  the  legislation  of  Christ, 
and  we  are  left  to  infer  the  mode  of  baptism  from 
the  figures  which  exhibit  the  communication  of  the 
Spirit's  influences,  then  we  see  that  another  way  in 
which  "we  are  brought  into  contact"  with  those 
influences  is  by  anointing.  The  Romish  church  has 
long  connected  unction  with  baptism  ;  but  I  ask  the 
Protestant,  who  has  the  Bible  in  his  hands,  is  anoint- 
ing baptism?  You  unhesitatingly  answer,  in  view 
of  the  conduct  of  the  apostles,  No  ;  they  knew  of  no 
such  ordinance,  neither  the  churches  of  God,   "  nei- 


82 

ther  came  it  into  their  mind."  What,  then,  shall 
be  thought  of  the  argument  that  would  give  to  an 
unauthorized  Romish  rite,  as  being  so  significant^ 
the  sanction  of  Christ? 

We  begin  to  see,  now,  how  much  was  taken  for 
.granted,  in  that  stately  assumption  which  we  find 
on  the  twenty-second  page  of  our  authors'  "  Hints:" 
"  Now,  then,  if  the  thing  signified  is  uniformly  rep- 
resented as  being  sprinkled  or  poured  out  upon  the 
subject/'  &c.  xly, — ?/it  is  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
if  it  is  not,  the  whole  argument  from  the  signification 
of  the  rite  is  destroyed.  The  condition  of  the  writer 
would  then  resemble  that  of  a  celebrated  geologist, 
who,  having  put  forth  a  theory,  based  on  the  facts 
observed  in  a  certain  section  of  the  country,  won 
some  favor  to  his  opinions,  at  the  first ;  but  when  it 
was  found  out,  by  subsequent  observers,  that  the 
facts  were  not  there^  the  case  was  materially  changed. 
The  beautiful  theory  passed  away,  like  "the  base- 
less fabric  of  a  vision." 

We  proceed  to  observe, 

5th.  That  another  way  in  which  the  Scriptures 
represent  our  being  "  brought  into  contact  with  the 
influences  of  the  Spirit,"  is  by  the  emission  of  sounds 
or  PUTTING  FORTH  THE  VOICE.  When  the  prophet  Eli- 
jah stood  in  the  mount,  it  is  said  (1  Kings  19),  the 
Lord  passed  by,  and  was  manifest,  not  in  the  wind, 
nor  the  earthquake,  nor  the  fire,  but  in  the'still,  small 
voice.  "  When  Elijah  heard  it,  he  wrapped  his  face  in 
his  mantle."  Here,  the  Spirit  is  represented,  not  as 
water,  fire,  or  air,  but  as  an  invisible,  yet  a  living  and 
audible  agent.  Hence,  David,  says,  "  The  Spirit  of 
the  Lord  spake  by  me,  and  his  word  was  in  my 
tongue."  2  Sam.  23  :  2.  The  apostle  John  repeat- 
edly says,  •'  He  that  hath  an  ear  to  hear,  let  him 
hear  what  the  Spirit  saith  unto  the  churches."  If, 
now,  it  be  true,  that  the  figures  which  represent  the 
mode  of  "contact  with  the  Spirit's  influences,"  point 
out  the  mode  of  baptism,  then,  speaking  to  the  ear, 


83 

uttering  with  the  voice,  is  baptism.  If  so,  the  bap- 
tismal formulary  pronounced  over  a  candidate  would 
suffice,  without  any  other  action.  This  mode  would 
be  peculiarly  adapted  to  all  climates  and  conditions, 
on  account  of  its  ease  and  convenience.  Somewhat 
m  the  vein  of  our  authors,  it  might  be  added,  the 
design  of  baptism  is  to  express  purification,  without 
reference  to  mode ;  but  the  words  of  the  Spirit  are 
said  to  have  a  purifying  influence,^  and,  of  course, 
to  pronounce  them  in  solemn  form  over  a  candidate, 
would  be  significant  of  purification.  If  so,  it  would 
answer  the  end  of  baptism.  If  my  reader  should  see 
any  thing  absurd  about  this,  let  him  consider  to 
whom  it  appertains.  On  page  twenty-second,  our 
authors  say,  after  having  quoted  a  number  of  passa- 
ges, in  which  sprinkling  and  pouring  are  mentioned, 
"It  is  of  no  consequence,  however,  as  to  the  point 
before  us,  whether  these  things  are  said  m  connection 
with  baptism  or  not.  They  are  brought  simply  to 
show  in  what  manner  the  Scriptures  speak  of  the 
communication  of  the  Spirit's  influences."  Well, 
sprinkling  and  pouring,  it  is  said,  are  called  baptism, 
because  they  represent  the  communication  of  the 
Spirit's  influences.  But  "putting  forth  the  voice" 
represents  the  communication  of  the  Spirit's  influ- 
ences. Of  course,  then,  putting  forth  the  voice  is 
baptism.  The  principle  of  our  authors'  argument 
leads  to  such  a  conclusion.  If  the  conclusion  be 
absurd,  the  principle  must  be  false. 

6.  Another  mode  in  which  the  Scriptures  represent 
the  Spirit  as  communicating  his  influences,  is  by 
"shining  forth  as  the  light."  This  is  strikingly 
expressed  by  Paul,  2  Cor.  4:6;  "God,  who  com- 
manded the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  hath 
shined  into  our  hearts."  To  the  Ephesians,  he  says, 
"I  do  not  cease  to  make  mention  of  you  in  my 
prayers,  that  the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  would 
give  unto  you  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation  in 

*  John  15:  3.    Ps.  119:  9. 


84 

the  knowledge  of  him,  the  eyes  of  your  understand- 
ing being  enhghtened."  Christ  promised  the  Spirit, 
as  the  Spirit  of  conviction  or  ilkimination.  (John 
16 :  8,  &c.)  He  reveals,  teaches,  enlightens,  quick- 
ens, sanctifies,  and  is  called  the  Spirit  of  wisdom, 
understanding  and  knowledge,  of  all  of  which,  light 
is  a  common  symbol.  In  these  aspects  his  abun- 
dant influences  were  the  theme  of  prophets,  who 
rejoiced  to  think  of  his  "  going  forth  being  prepared 
as  the  morning,"  and  of  his  filling  the  world  with 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  In  the  passage  first 
quoted,  Paul  represents  his  going  forth  over  the  new 
creation,  to  be  as  at  the  beginning,  when  light  broke 
forth  from  darkness.  This  emblem  of  the  Spirit's 
coming  is  different  from  all  the  rest;  and  it  really 
seems  as  if  all  the  grand  objects  of  creation  were  laid 
imder  contribution  to  illustrate  the  variety  and 
extent  of  his  influence.  How,  then,  can  it  be  said, 
that  those  influences  are  uniformly  represented  by 
sprinkling  and  pouring?     ^\\q  facts  are  assumed. 

7.  But,  then,  the  gentlemen  say  (p.  21),  "If  we 
are  currently  represented  as  being  put  into  the  Spirit, 
or  plunged  into  the  Spirit,  we  concede  the  whole 
matter  in  question."  In  the  Rejoinder  (p.  88),  they 
admit  that  those  instances  which  I  have  adduced, 
prove  "that  the  word  baptize,  in  those  cases,  means 
to  immerse.  That  it  ofte?i  means  to  immerse,"  they 
say,  they  "have  never  disputed."  Well,  let  us  look 
at  the  bearings  of  these  remarks.  It  is  granted,  that 
in  the  cases  which  I  quote,  the  word  mitst  have  a 
determinate  meaning, — immersion.  It  is  granted 
that  the  word  has  this  meaning  often.  But,  then,  it 
is  evident  that  the  meaning  of  a  word  which  is  clear 
and  undisputed,  which  in  specific  instances  it  must 
have,  and  which  occurs,  not  rarely,  but  often,  is  the 
eminent  meaning  of  the  word.  An  obvious,  undis- 
puted, necessary  and  frequent  meaning,  is  the  "cur- 
rent "  meaning, — not  one  which  may  occur,  which 
is  doubtful  and  disputed.     It  follows,  therefore,  that 


85 

in  those  cases  where  men  are  simply  said  to  receive 
a  BAPTISM  of  the  Spirit,  they  "are  currently  repre- 
sented as  being  put  into  or  immersed  into  the  Spirit." 
The  more  closely  the  reader  looks  at  this,  the  more 
clearly  will  he  see,  that  the  whole  matter  in  question 
is  virtually  conceded,  however  unwittingly  it  may 
have  been  done. 

But  not  on  this  ground,  alone,  will  I  claim  the 
concession.  Apart  from  the  current  meaning  of  bap- 
tizo,  the  language  of  Scripture  touching  the  influ- 
ences of  the  Spirit  is  often  in  exact  accordance  with 
this  representation.  When  the  apostle  John  speaks 
of  his  own  state  in  relation  to  the  Spirit,  while  in  the 
isle  of  Patmos,  does  he  say  that  the  Spirit  was  njyon 
him,  or  in  him?  No,  he  says,  "  I  was  m  the  Sjnrit 
on  the  Lord's  day."  Rev.  1:  10.  So,. also,  when 
he  saw  a  door  opened  in  heaven,  he  says  (Rev.  4  :  2), 
"Immediately  1  was  in  the  Spirit."  He  speaks  also 
of  "being  carried  away  in  the  Spirit"  into  the  wil- 
derness, and  to  a  high  mountain  (Rev.  17:  3.  21:  10)  ; 
just  as  Ezekiel  was,  when,  as  he  said,  "  the  Spirit 
took  me  up,  and  I  heard  behind  me  the  voice  of  a 
great  rushing;"  "  so  the  Spirit  lifted  me  up  and  took 
me  away."  Ezek.  7:  12,  14.  11:  24.  As  we  are 
said,  in  a  natural  sense,  to  live  and  move  in  God 
(Acts  17:  28),  who  is  above,  beneath  and  around  us 
as  an  all-pervading  presence,  so,  in  a  spiritual  sense, 
when  we  pass  from  death  unto  life,  we  are  said  to 
move  in  a  new  element,  to  "live  in  the  Spirit,"  and 
to  "  walk  in  the  Spirit."  When  the  Spirit  of  life 
from  God  enters  into  us,  to  dwell  in  us,  we  are  as 
those  who  enjoy  the  light  and  air  of  a  new  creation. 
So,  John  says  (1  Epis.  4:  16),  "He  that  dwelleth  in 
love  dwelleth  IN  God,  and  God  in  him;"  and  Paul 
says  (Rom.  8:  9),  "Ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in 
the  Spirit^  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in 
you."  To  the  Galatians,  he  says  (5  :  16, 17),  "Walk 
in  the  Spirit:"  "if  we  live  in  the  Spiiit,  let  us  also 
walk  in  the  iSpirit.^^  As  the  mind  of  a  man  intox- 
8 


86 

icated  is  figuratively  said  to  be  steeped  or  immersed 
in  wine,  so  Paul  expresses  the  proper  extent  of  our 
subjection  to  the  influences  of  the  Spirit,  when  he 
says  (Ephes.  5:  IS),  "Be  not  drunk  with  wine, 
wherein  is  excess,  but  he  filled  with  the  Spirit."  So 
far  is  it  from  being  true,  that  the  Spirit  is  uniformly 
represented  as  being  sprinkled  or  poured  upon  us, 
that  even  in  one  of  the  graces  of  the  Spirit,  we  are 
commanded  to  be  enveloped;  for  it  is  said,  "be 
clothed  with  humiUty."'  When,  on  the  mount  of 
transfiguration,  Peter,  James  and  John  "entered 
into"  that  bright  cloud  of  glory  which  came  and 
oversliadowed  them  (Luke  9  :  35),  no  doubt  they 
were  baptized  in  the  cloud, — surrounded  and  covered 
with  it;  and  certainly,  if  the  influences  of  the  Spirit 
may  be  represented  as  "  a  river  of  water  of  life,"  as 
the  air  of  tieaven,  as  a  celestial  breeze,,  as  a  "  mighty 
wind  filling  the  whole  house,"  as  "  floods  upon  the 
dry  ground,"  as  pools  filled  with  rain,  as  "a  cloud 
of  dew  in  the  heat  of  harvest,"  how  accordant  it 
must  be  with  the  genius  and  style  of  the  Scriptures, 
to  speak  of  an  immersion  into  the  influences  of  the 
Spirit ! 

How  wonderful  it  is,  that  those  who  profess  to 
believe  in  the  Spirit,  as  a  divine  and  pervading  pres- 
ence, should  find  any  difliculty  with  such  expres- 
sions,— should  seem  not  to  understand  them,  or  to 
feel  their  force.  When  David  thought  of  God  as  the 
light  and  life  of  the  natural  creation,  he  cried, 
''  Whither  shall  I  go  from  thy  presence,  or  whither 
shall  I  flee  from  thy  Spirit?"  But  when  men  are 
converted,  pass  from  the  kingdom  of  Satan  into  that 
of  Christ,  "from  darkness  to  light,"  from  their  nat- 
ural state  into  a  new  moral  creation,  they  are  said  to 
"put  on  the  new  man,"  to  be  "new  creatures,"  and 
are  justly  regarded  as  being  surrounded  with,  and 
enveloped  in  heavenly  influences.  Yet,  so  narrow 
are  our  authors'  views  of  this  subject,  that  they  say 
(pp.  13S,  139),    "  Indeed,  to  employ  it  (immersion) 


87 

in  representing  the  effects  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  opera- 
tions upon  the  human  soul,  seems  to  be  a  monstrous 
perversion  of  language.  Those  effects  are  purity, 
joy,  peace,  &c.  Now,  it  is  very  common  to  speak 
of  being  immersed  in  care  and  trouble,  of  being 
immersed  in  debt,  of  being  immersed  in  sloth,  (&c. 
The  term  is  frequently  used  to  denote  something 
disagreeable  and  oppressive.  But  who  ever  thinks 
of  describing  that  which  is  pleasant  and  joyous  by 
such  a  term  ?  Immersed  in  purity — immersed  in  joy 
— immersed  in  peace — immersed  in  humility — it  is 
barbarous  phraseology  !"  And  yet,  how  often  do  the 
lips  of  those  who  sing  the  songs  of  Zion  utter  similar 
expressions  !  Have  our  authors  forgotten  AYatts's 
hymns  ?     Let  them  turn  to  the  65th  hymn,  book  2d. 

"  There  shall  I  bathe  my  weary  soul, 
In  seas  of  heavenly  rest; 
And  not  a  wave  of  trouble  roll 
Across  my  peaceful  breast." 

Many  of  their  readers  must  have  sung  that  verse, 
without  thinking  of  any  thing  "disagreeable  and 
oppressive."  Could  these  critics  really  wish  that 
the  poet  had  altered  his  phrase,  and  sung  of  a  mere 
sprinkling  of  heavenly  rest?  Then,  again,  have 
they  forgotten  Cowper's  hymn,  touching  the  "foun- 
tain filled  with  bloodj"  in  which  he  says, 

*' And  sinners,  plunged  beneath  that  flood, 
Lose  all  their  guilty  stains  ?" 

If  their  taste  regards  this  as  "barbarous  phraseol- 
ogy," they  may  well  inquire  whether  the  songs  of 
heaven  would  not  need  equal  improvement;  for 
therein  the  redeemed  are  described  as  those  who 
have  "come  out  of  great  tribulation,  and  washed 
their  robes,  and  made  them  white,  in  the  blood  of  the 
Lamb.''' 

From  what  we  have  said  on  this  point,  which  is 
regarded  as  "decisive  of  the  whole  question,"  it  is 
abundantly  evident  that  our  authors  have  mistaken 


88 

the  facts  of  the  case, — those  facts  which  are  the  basis 
of  their  reasoning.  Their  views  are  too  hmited. 
Their  conchision  is  founded  on  the  assumption,  that 
in  "the  communication  of  the  Spirit's  influences," 
they  are  "  imiformly  represented  as  sprinkled  or 
poured  out  npon  the  subject."  (p.  22.)  This  as- 
sumption, we  have  seen,  is  baseless.  The  Scriptures 
contradict  it.  The  simple  statement  of  the  fact  is, 
that  all  the  realms  of  nature  are  laid  under  contribu- 
tion, to  furnish  emblems  to  illustrate  the  influence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  who  is  represented  by  a  vast  variety 
of  figures;  as  a  well  of  water  springing  up,  as  a 
river,  a  running  stream,  oil,  air,  breath,  rushing 
wind,  fire,  light,  dew,  rain;  and  that  in  each  case, 
the  language  which  expresses  the  communication  of 
the  Spirit,  corresponds  with  the  object  to  which  he 
is  compared.  So  far  is  pouring  from  being  appro- 
priated to  the  communication  of  the  Spirit's  influence, 
that  it  is  often  applied  to  the  dispensation  of  wrath 
and  punishment;  as  in  Hos.  5:  10,  "I  will  pour  out 
my  wrath  like  water  upon  them;"  in  Ezek.  7:  8, 
''  Now  will  I  shortly  pour  out  my  fury  upon  thee;" 
in  chap.  22  :  31,  "  Therefore  have  I  poured  out  my 
indignation  upon  them."  In' Revelation,  we  read  of 
angels  commissioned  to  pour  out  the  vials  of  the 
wrath  of  God  upon  the  earth  (16:  1);  and  in  many 
other  places  we  find  the  same  figure  employed.  If, 
then,  the  facts  on  which  the  argument  is  built,  are 
sliown  to  have  been  falsely  assumed,  what  becomes 
of  the  argument  itself? 

Then,  again,  our  authors  have  overlooked  the 
fact,  that  where  a  baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  really 
spoken  of,  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  is  never 
called  the  baptism,  but  is  antecedent  to  it,  and  in 
order  to  accomplish  it.  AVhenever  I  administer 
baptism  in  the  church,  pouring  always  precedes  it; 
it.  is  the  pouring  of  the  water  into  the  baptistery;  but 
we  never  call  that  the  baptism.  It  is  only  the  means 
of  baptism,  and,   however  necessary,   is  not   to  be 


89 

confounded  with  it.  Water  is  poured  into  a  bath,  in 
order  to  bathing;  but  the  pouring  is  not  the  bathing. 
Unless  the  skies  poured  down  water,  we  could  not 
immerse  in  brooks,  pools  or  rivers,  for  all  would  be 
dried  up.  But  though  the  one  of  those  is  necessary 
to  the  other,  the  two  things  are  not  identical.  On 
the  day  of  pentecost,  the  disciples  were  surrounded 
and  covered  with  the  emblems  of  the  Spirit;  for 
''  there  came  a  sound  from  heaven,  as  of  a  rushing 
mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house,"  accom- 
panied with  cloven  tongues,  hke  as  of  fire  or  ''lam- 
bent flame;"  so  that,  while  the  event  fulfilled  the 
prediction  of  Joel,  touching  the  Christian  age,  that 
the  Spirit  should  be  poured  out  on  God's  servants 
and  handmaids,  the  pouring  out  is  never  called 
baptism,  but  was  undoubtedly  the  means  of  that 
baptism,  which  John  had  promised,  and  for  which 
Jesus  had  bidden  his  apostles  to  wait ;  saying  (Acts 
1:  5),  "For  John  truly  baptized  with  water;  but  ye 
shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  not  many 
days  hence."  They  had  received  the  Spirit  before 
this,  in  their  conversion  and  sanctification  ;  but,  that 
all-pervading  influence,  that  large  and  extraordinary 
impartation,  involving  miraculous  powers,  which  is 
called  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  they  were  led  to 
expect  as  Christ's  ascension-gift.  And  when  it  came, 
it  seemed  as  if  the  Saviour  had  ''  not  given  his  Spirit 
by  measure"  unto  them.  Its  eflects  and  extent 
could  not  be  denoted  by  sprinkling  or  pouring  water 
on  the  face,  for  their  "whole  spirit,  soul  and  body" 
were  bathed  in  the  celestial  influence.  Pouring  went 
before  that  baptism,  but  it  was  a  pouring,  in  gran- 
deur like  that  which  Job  speaks  of,  when  he  says 
(29:  6),  "The  rock  poured  out  rivers;"  or  which 
Isaiah  expressed,  when  he  said  of  the  Lord  (30:  28), 
"His  breath  is  as  an  overflowing  stream."  In  the 
statement  of  facts,  then,  our  authors  have  confound- 
ed the  means  with  the  end,  the  antecedent  with  the 
8=^' 


90 

consequent,  and  have  departed  from  all  Scripture 
usage,  in  calling  pouring,  baptism. 

II.  But  I  have  said,  that,  apart  from  their  mis- 
taking the  facts  before  them  in  the  Scriptures,  their 
principle  of  reasoning  from  the  signification  of  the 
rite  is  enth'ely  fallacious.  This  argument,  which  is 
said  to  be  ''decisive  of  the  whole  question,"  rests  on 
the  assumption,  that  in  a  positive  institution^  which 
depends  on  the  loill  of  the  lawgiver,  the  thing  to  be 
done  is  not  to  be  learned  from  the  terms  of  the  law, 
bnt  by  ascertaini?ig  the  Qnoral  meaning  of  the  rite, 
a7id  choosing  for  ourselves  the  most  appropriate  man- 
ner to  express  it.  For  a  candid  inquirer,  a  little  cool 
reflection  will  sufiice  to  show  the  absurdity  of  such 
a  statement.  It  contains  a  principle  which  is  prolific 
of  evil.  It  is  the  essential  element  of  that  Jesuitical 
spirit  of  the  Popish  church,  which  enables  it  to 
explain  away,  in  the  view  of  the  multitude,  all  God's 
explicit  commands.  No  religious  observance  that 
was  ever  enjoined  in  any  law,  human  or  divine, 
could  endure  for  a  day,  if  such  a  principle  were 
admitted.  Think  of  it,  for  a  moment.  The  baptis- 
mal law,  contained  in  the  commission,  enjoins  some 
one  particular  action,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son 
and  Holy  Ghost,  on  every  Christian.  I  say,  some 
one  action,  because  no  one  contends  that  the  same 
person  should  undergo  three  or  four  modes  of  bap- 
tism. But  the  law,  instead  of  making  the  action 
plain,  uses  an  enacting  term,  which  is  uncertain., 
equivocal,  determines  nothing  as  to  ma?i7ier,  and 
leaves  the  inquirer  to  infer  what  ought  to  be  done, 
from  the  spiritual  meaning  of  the  rite !  Was  ever 
such  a  law  heard  of  before?  No,  never,  except  on 
the  ground  stated  by  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson,  when  he 
says,  respecting  the  interpretation  of  law,  ''a  man 
accustomed  to  satisfy  himself  with  the  obvious  and 
statural  meaning  of  a  sentence,  does  not  easily  shake 
oflfhis  habit;  but  a  true  bred  lawyer  never  contents 
himself  with  this  sense,  when  there  is  another  to  be 
found." 


91 

I  pronounce  the  principle  of  interpretation  involved 
in  this  whole  argument  from  the  signification  of  the 
rite,  to  be  fallacious  and  dangerous, 

1.  Because  it  sets  aside  the  xcords  of  the  law  of 
Christy  as  i7isiifficie?it,  and  not  adapted  to  explain  the 
ivill  of  the  Laivgiver.  It  says  that  Christ  has  used 
words  which  do  not  expound  the  duty  enjoined ;  and 
now,  when  the  question  is  before  us,  "what  is  that 
duty?"  it  says,  this  question  "  does  not  turn  on  the 
meaning  of  the  word"  found  in  the  law.  This  is 
degrading  the  legislation  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  casting 
a  stain  upon  its  character  that  would  be  "felt  like  a 
wound"  by  any  human  legislator.  As  was  observed 
by  that  eminent  jurist.  Sir  William  Blackstone,=^  the 
words  of  a  law  "are  generally  to  be  understood  in 
their  usual  and  most  known  signification;  not  so 
much  regarding  the  propriety  of  grammar,  as  their 
general  and  popular  use."  In  accordance  with  this, 
is  the  remark  of  Dr.  Sherlock,  in  his  Preservative 
against  Popery,f  wherein,  speaking  of  the  exposition 
of  law,  he  says,  "  When  there  is  no  such  reason  as 
makes  one  sense  absurd  and  another  necessary,  the 
law  must  be  expounded  according  to  the  most  plain 
and  obvious  signification  of  the  words,  though  it 
should  condemn  that  which  we  think  there  may  be 
some  reason  for,  or  at  least  no  reason  against;  for 
otherwise  it  is  an  easy  matter  to  expound  away  all 
THE  LAWS  QF  GOD."  A  principle  which  tends  to  such 
a  result,  must  be  false ;  and  none  that  was  ever 
broached,  tends  to  it  more  directly  and  siirely  than 
that  which  is  the  life  of  the  argument  before  us. 

2.  I  object  to  it,  because  lit  sets  aside  that  plain 
law  of  language^  which  forbids  us  to  give  a  figura- 
tive meaning  of  a  icord  precedence  over  the  literal 
and  the  proper.  I  have  stated  it  in  the  words  of 
Ernesti;  and  with  these  agree  the  words  of  President 
Edwards,  when  reasoning  against  Socinianism  :  "  In 
words  capable  of  two  senses,  the  natural  and  the 

*  Commentaries,  Vol.  I,  Int.,  Sec.  IL  t  Vol.  II,  App.,  p.  11. 


92 

proper  is  the  primary,  and  therefore  ought  in  the  first 
place  and  chiefly  to  be  regarded." 

3.  I  object  to  it,  further,  that  it  annihilates  a  pos- 
itive rite  of  Christ.  Rejecting  the  very  word  which 
Christ  has  chosen  as  the  exposition  of  his  will,  it 
seizes  the  abstract  idea  of  which  his  institution  is 
said  to  be  an  emblem,  and  then  makes  neio  rites,  as 
emblems  of  that  idea.  Immersion  is  one  rite,  sprink- 
ling is  another,  pouring  is  another.  There  is  as 
much  diflerence,  in  form  and  meaning,  between 
immersion  and  sprinkling,  as  between  baptism  and 
the  Lord's  supper.  Any  abstract  idea,  or  any  spirit- 
ual truth,  may  be  represented  by  various  outward 
signs  or  emblems.  Yet,  who  but  God  has  the 
authority  to  exalt  one  of  these  into  an  emblematic 
RITE,  and  make  the  observance  of  it  binding  on  the 
conscience  ?  And  if  he  selects  one,  impresses  on  it 
his  own  seal,  invests  it  with  the  dignity  of  an  ordi- 
na7ice,  and  commands  it  to  be  regarded  as  his  ap- 
pointment, who  has  the  right  to  set  it  aside,  and 
substitute  another,  on  the  plea  that  it  will  do  as  well, 
and  answer  the  same  end? 

For  instance :  a  rent  garment,  a  dress  of  sack- 
cloth, ashes  on  the  head,  a  piece  of  crape,  or  a  black 
seal,  are  emblems  of  grief  But  among  us,  no  one 
of  these  is  an  emblematic  rite.  But  suppose,  for  a 
moment,  that  clothing  one's  self  in  sackcloth  had 
been  made  so  by  divine  appointment,  and  that  on 
the  loss  of  relatives,  we  were  commanded  to  observe 
it,  as  a  sign  of  humiliation  and  sorrow.  We  would 
naturally  expect  that  the  obedient  mourner,  when  he 
should  wish  to  ascertain  his  duty,  would  look  to  the 
ivo?^ds  of  the  law  for  direction.  '^The  command- 
ment is  a  lamp."  How  plain  is  the  precept!  "It 
giveth  understanding  to  the  simple."  It  says,  "  thou 
shalt  clothe  thyself  in  sackcloth."  Nothing  can  be 
more  lucid.  But  he  meets  with  a  professed  inter- 
preter of  the  law,  who  tells  him  of  his  mistake,  and 
teaches  him  the  principle,  that  the  question  of  his 


93 

duty  is  not  to  be  settled  by  the  icords  of  the  law^  but 
by  the  signification  of  the  I'ite.  "  This  rite,"  the 
teacher  says,  "signifies  grief;  but  grief  may  be 
signified  in  various  modes.  Pouring  or  sprinkling 
ashes  on  the  head,  or  wearing  a  small  piece  of  crape, 
will  express  it  equally  well.  Especially  the  former, 
for  grief  itself  is  often  represented  by  'pouring:  as,  in 
Job  16: 13,  '  he  poureth  out  my  gall  upon  the  ground ;' 
3:24,  'my  roarings  are  poured  out  like  waters;' 
30  :  16,  'my  soul  is  poured  out  upon  me,  the  days  of 
afl3.iction  have  taken  hold  upon  me.'  Now^  if  the 
thing  signified  is  represented  as  poured  out,  that 
which  signifies  it  may  be  ^pouring.  Besides,  this  is 
more  easy,  cheap  and  convenient  than  clothing  in 
sackcloth,  more  adapted  to  all  climes  and  conditions, 
to  all  times  and  seasons.  It  is  contrary  to  the  genius 
of  the  gospel,  to  lay  great  stress  on  outward  rites. 
In  respect  to  these  commands,  God  is  not  very  par- 
ticular. He  regards  the  letter  less  than  the  spirit ; 
and  as  pouring  ashes  has  the  same  signification  as 
clothing  in  sackcloth,  either  will  be  a  fulfilment  of 
the  command.  Only  let  us  beware  of  that  which  is 
most 'cumbrous  and  inconvenient.'"  This  exposi- 
tion might  be  new  to  the  inquirer;  but,  imless  he 
were  quite  predisposed  to  surrender  his  judgment  to 
that  of  his  teacher,  he  could  scarcely  fail  to  see  its 
fallacy, — that  it  was  actually  annihilating  the  rite 
of  God's  appointment,  and  placing  another  in  its 
stead.  Fallacious,  however,  as  it  may  be,  it  is  an 
exact  illustration  of  the  principle  adopted  by  our 
authors,  which  leads  them  to  confound  figures  of 
speech  with  emblematic  rites,  to  base  an  ordinance 
of  God  upon  a  class  of  metaphors,  and,  instead  of 
turning  to  the  law,  and  letting  the  proper  sense  of 
the  enacting  term  make  known  his  will,  to  reject 
that  law,  in  order  to  select,  from  a  wide  range  of 
emblems,  one  more  significant  than  that  which  his 
command,  by  its  own  force,  enjoins.  O,  what  a 
bearing  has  an  expression  of  the  celebrated  Charnock 


94 

here  !  "  If  laws  may  be  interpreted  according  to  our 
humors,  the  power  of  the  law  would  be  more  in  the 
interpreter  than  the  legislator." 

4.  I  object  to  it,  again,  because  it  is  a  principle 
which  opens  a  wide  scope  for  the  vagaries  of  super- 
stition.  Our  authors  observe,  speaking  of  the  early- 
ages  (p.  135),  "It  is  a  fact,  incontrovertibly  estab- 
lished, that  on  no  subject  did  superstition  so  luxuri- 
ate, as  upon  baptism."  Never  was  there  a  statement 
more  true  to  history  than  this ;  and  while  they  print 
i\\Q  fact  in  capitals,  in  order  to  draw  attention  to  it, 
let  the  reader  mark  it,  that  their  theory  of  iyiterpreta- 
Hon  is  the  very  one  ichich  adeqnately  accounts  for  the 
fact.  If,  as  we  aver,  the  very  words  of  the  baptis- 
mal law  determine  mode,  and'  confine  us  to  a  single 
act  as  baptism,  there  is  no  room  given  for  supersti- 
tious fancies  to  breathe  a  moment.  A  clear,  ex- 
plicit law  settles  every  thing,  forbidding  addition  or 
diminution.  But  if,  as  the  gentlemen  say,  the  enact- 
ing term  in  the  commission  of  our  Lord  is  of  uncer- 
tain import,  if  it  enjoins  no  particular  mode,  if 
nothing  in  the  gospel  "requires  the  conscience  to  be 
burdened  with  the  inquiry  whether  it  shall  be  done 
in  this  way  or  that,"  if  nothing  is  said  "  about  a 
danger  to  be  incurred,  by  failing  to  perform  the 
simple  ceremonies,  precisely  after  a  particular  way" 
(p.  5),  but  if  we  are  left  to  infer  the  manner  from 
the  spiritual  sig7iification  of  the  rite, — then,  indeed, 
is  a  broad  and  rich  field  open,  in  which  superstition 
may  luxuriate^  to  its  heart's  content.  Reader,  do  you 
not  see  that  from  this  baleful  principle  would  nat- 
urally spring  all  those  significccnt  emblems,  which 
the  gentlemen  enumerate  as  accompanying  baptism 
in  a  less  enlightened  age  and  land  than  ours  7 
Whence,  but  from  this,  arose  the  anointing  with  oil, 
the  signing  w/ith  the  sign  of  the  cross^  eating  milk 
and  honey ^  putting  on  of  white  garments^  and  other 
absurd  observances,  which  they  have  not  noticed? 
Our  authors'  theory  of  baptism,  and   this  mass  of 


'  3§ 

superstitions,  hold  to  each  other  the  relation  of  cause 
and  effect.  The  rite  was  said  to  signify  purification, 
and  any  thing  that  could  be  a  sign  of  purification 
was  thought  to  be  appropriately  identified  with  bap- 
tism. And  why  not,  if  we  are  left  to  the  signification 
of  the  rite,  to  infer  the  proper  sign,  and  the  Bible  is 
not  particular  as  to  manner'?  Certainly,  "where 
there  is  no  law,  there  is  no  transgression  ;"  and 
those  things  which  our  authors  call  "fooleries"  in 
the  ancients,  were,  on  their  own  principle,  mere 
matters  of  taste,  and  ought  to  be  treated  very  gently 
by  men  who  deny  that  there  is  any  clear ^  definite  and 
binding  statute  on  the  subject.  What  inconsistency, 
to  utter  such  a  sentiment  as  that,  and  in  the  same 
breath  to  denounce  those,  who  introduced  various 
baptismal  rites,  on  the  very  ground  of  their  signifi- 
cancy^  as  emblems  of  the  blessings  of  the  Holy  Spirit! 
Cherishing  in  their  own  system  the  germ  from  which 
such  fruits  proceed,  they  ought  to  have  large  charity 
for  those  of  other  times,  who  allowed  it  to  have  its 
proper  growth, — a  natural  and  full  development. 

1  proceed  to  notice  the  second  "  important  matter,'"' 
which  our  authors  think  has  been  unduly  neglected 
in  my  Review,  which  is,  their  objections  to  the 
argument  for  immersion,  drawn  by  us  from 

BURIAL    WITH    CHRIST    IN    BAPTISM. 

They  seem  to  wonder  that  I  should  have  passed 
by  their  "  whole  chapter  "  on  this  subject,  and  placed 
the  argument  among  the  "minor  points"  of  the 
discussion.  But  theu,  it  is  evident,  that  if  I  had 
shown  that  the  word  baptize  means  immersion,  and 
nothing  short  of  that, — if  I  had  invalidated  their 
arguments  to  the  contrary,  and  laid  down  principles 
Avhich  apply  to  all  such  arguments, — the  question 
was  settled ;  the  declaration  of  Paul,  "  we  are  buried 
with  Christ  by  baptism,"  is  in  such  striking  corre- 
spondence with  that  view,  as  to  render  it  clearer  to 
the  mind  of  an  inquirer ;    and  if  the  attempts  to 


96  • 

explain  away  that  correspondence  seemed  rather 
trifling,  it  was  well  to  pass  them  by,  in  a  work 
designed  at  first  to  touch  only  the  main  point  on 
which  the  controversy  turns.  But  as  they  attach 
much  importance  to  their  argument,  let  us  examine  it. 

First  of  all,  they  endeavor  to  raise  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  receiving  that  obvious  and  natural  inter- 
pretation of  the  passages  before  them  (Rom.  6,  and 
Col.  2 :  12),  which  strikes  at  once  the  eye  of  the 
plain  reader,  which  has  been  acknowledged,  by  the 
best  commentators  of  all  denominations,  to  be  an 
allusion  to  the  primitive  practice  of  immersion,  and 
which,  stated  by  Baptists  themselves,  has  carried 
conviction  to  the  minds  of  millions. 

The  first  difficulty  is  this.  Assuming  that  they 
have  proved  that  the  grand  design  of  baptism  is  to 
teach  purification  by  the  Spirit's  influences,  it  ap- 
pears to  them  impossible  that  its  design  should  also 
be  to  represent  a  burial.  ^^  Both  cannot  he  held. 
Purity  contrasts  with  the  corruption  and  filth  of  the 
grave." 

To  this,  my  answer  is  two-fold.  1st.  Baptism  is 
designed  to  furnish  a  lively  representation  of  the 
means  of  our  salvation^  by  the  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ.  Paul  brings  this  to  view,  in 
the  passage  before  us:  "  Like  as  Christ  was  raised 
UP  FROM  THE  DEAD,  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  so  we 
also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life."  That  such 
was  the  design  of  baptism,  is  explicitly  asserted 
(1  Pet.  3:  21),  "the  like  figure  whereunto  even  bap- 
tism doth  also  now  save  us,  by  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ.^'  Now,  whatever  else  is  doubtful,  this 
end  and  aim  of  baptism  is  clear.  No  words  could 
make  it  plainer.  If  baptism  can  be  the  memorial  of 
only  one  idea,  this  last  must  be  received  above  all 
others,  it  is  so  distinctly  taught.  Most  of  the  pas- 
sages quoted  by  our  authors  touching  purification, 
have  no  reference  to  baptism  at  all ;  of  which  they 
are  well  aware,  when  they  say  (p.  22).   "it  is  of  no 


97 

consequence  as  to  the  point  before  us,  whether  these 
things  are  said  in  connection  with  baptism  or  not." 
But  the  passages  now  before  us  have  this  advantage, 
that  their  express  design  is  to  teach  the  meaning  of 
the  rite.  And  as  far  as  the  emblem  points  to  the 
burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  it  involves  no  idea 
of  corruption;  for  he,  the  Holy  One,  was  not  left  in 
the  grave,  ^^  neither  did  his  flesh  see  corruption^ 

2.  As  far  as  baptism  sets  forth  our  own  hope  of 
salvation  by  Christ,  the  gentlemen  forget  that  it 
represents  a  resurrection  as  well  as  a  burial.  They 
speak  as  if  Ave  had  remained  always  under  the  water, 
and  see  nothing  but  the  emblematic  grave.  Paul 
speaks  of  more.  He  says  we  are  raised  up  to  walk 
IN  NEWNESS  OF  LIFE.  Thcrc  is  purification  !  We  put 
off  the  old  ma??,  a?id  p?it  on  the  ?ieio  man.  So,  at  last, 
when  the  voice  of  Christ  shall  call  these  bodies  from 
their  tombs,  fashioned  like  unto  his  own  glorious 
body,  this  corruption  shall  have  put  on  incorruption, 
this  mortal  shall  have  put  on  immortality,  and  we 
shall  have  passed  through  a  ptirifyi?ig  process,  to  fit 
us  for  the  bliss  of  heaven.  Since  this  is  the  Chris- 
tian's peculiar  hope,  which  the  wisest  of  the  heath- 
ens never  knew,  how  fitting  that  the  initiating  rite 
of  Christianity  should  loudly  proclaim  it ! 

But  it  is  said  (p.  23),  this  difficulty  being  sur- 
mounted, another  comes.  We  must  prove  that  the 
passage  "refers  to  icater  baptism, V^  Here  we  are 
landed  into  Quakerism,  at  once.  It  is  as  easy  to  get 
rid  of  all  the  passages  about  water  baptism,  as  of 
this.  They  say,  the  argument  of  the  Baptists  "  rests 
on  this  assumption, — yet  it  is  mei^e  assu??iptio?i.'''' 
Bold  and  startling  assertion,  this,  to  come  from  such 
a  source  !  Do  not  the  gentlemen  know  that  this  idea 
is  no  peculiarity  of  the  Baptists  at  all,  but  that  most 
of  the  Pedobaptist  writers,  throughout  the  world, 
teach  the  very  same?  It  is  very  strange,  if  they  did 
not  know  it;  and  if  they  did  know  it,  it  is  "passing 
strange  "  that  they  should  allow  themselves  to  speak 
9 


98 

thus.  Ay,  more.  Standard  Pedobaptist  writers 
generally  allow  that  the  passage  refers  to  the  prim- 
itive practice  of  immersion  !  I  have  before  me  the 
well-known  commentary_and  notes  of  Dr.  McKnight 
(a  Presbyterian)  on  the  epistles,  who  says,  in  his 
preface  to  tlie  sixth  of  Romans,  "To  show  that  the 
apostles,  who  taught  the  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith,  without  works,  did  not  mean  to  set  their  disci- 
ples free  from  the  obligations  of  morality,  Paul  ob- 
served, that  in  baptism,  the  rite  of  initiation  into  the 
Christian  church,  the  baptized  person  is  buried  under 
THE  WATER,  as  ouc  put  to  death  with  Christ  on 
account  of  sin,  in  order  that  he  may  be  strongly 
impressed  with  the  malignity  of  sin,  and  excited  to 
hate  it,  as  the  greatest  of  evils.  Moreover,  in  the 
same  rite,  the  baptized  person  being  raised  vp  out  of 
the  water ^  after  being  washed,  he  is  thereby  taught 
that  he  shall  be  raised  from  the  dead  with  Christ,  by 
the  power  of  the  Fatherj  to  live  with  him  for  ever  in 
heaven."  This  view,  McKnight,  who  was  one  of 
the  most  learned  writers  of  the  Scotch  church,  illus- 
trates more  fully  in  his  paraphrase.  I  might  quote 
a  host  of  other  critics,  of  all  countries,  who  say  the 
same  thing;  and,  of  course,  I  cannot  but  marvel 
greatly,  that  any  intelligent  man  should  assert  this 
view  of  the  passage  to  be  a  mere  assnmjjtioii  of  the 
Baptists.  It  would  be  almost  as  near  the  truth,  to 
say  that  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  is  an  assump- 
tion of  the  Baptists. 

3.  "This  difficulty  being  surmounted,"  it  is  said, 
"another  comes.  It  is  a  question  not  so  easily 
settled,  as  to  what  the  likeness  shall  be.  If  the 
reader  will  turn  to  the  passage,  he  will  see  that  there 
is  a  comparison  with  death,  with  crucifixion,  with 
burial,  &c.  Suppose  we  insist  that  baptism  shall 
imitate  the  form  of  Christ's  death^  and  not  his  burial 
(for  surely  the  two  things  are  very  distinct),  what 
would  the  Immersers  say?"  Why,  gentlemen,  we 
should  say  that  you  had  adopted  a  Popish  practice, 


99 

without  the  least  scriptural  warrant  or  authority. 
The  Catholics  have  long  insisted  on  imitating  the 
crucifixion,  and  have  instituted  an  observance  for 
the  purpose;  but  who  hath  required  this  at  their 
hand?  If  Christ  had  instituted  a  rite  to  commemo- 
rate his  scourging^  we  should  certainly  observe  it. 
If  he  had  instituted  another,  to  memorialize  the 
manner  of  his  deaths  we  should  also  observe  that. 
But  as  he  has  chosen  that  baptism  should  represent 
only  his  burial  and  resurrection,  we  bow  to  his  will. 
Who  but  he,  has  authority  to  prescribe  an  act  of 
ritual  worship  7  In  the  selection  which  he  has  made, 
we  see  his  wisdom ;  for  burial  and  resurrection  imply 
death,  but  mere  death  does  not  imply  burial  and 
resurrection;  and  without  the  latter,  Christ's  death 
would  have  availed  us  nothing.  The  sign  of  the 
cross  would  have  been  a  stigma,  and  not  an  honor. 

4.  "This  difficulty  being  surmounted,"  we  are 
told,  "another  comes.  How  shall  we  baptize  in  a 
way  to  imitate  a  burial?"  We  answer, — as  you 
please,  only  let  it  be  with  becoming  reverence,  "de- 
cently and  in  order."  It  is  said,  "nations  have 
various  modes  of  burial,  but  in  no  case  do  they  bury 
by  thrusting  the  body  through  the  soil."  We  an- 
swer,— the  body  of  Christ  was  thrust  through  a 
small  aperture  into  a  rocky  tomb,  and  then  the 
entrance  was  closed.  The  body  was  thus  covered, 
and  hidden  from  sight.  Jesus  was  pleased  to  com- 
pare his  own  burial  to  that  of  Jonah  ;  "for  as  Jonah 
was  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  whale's  belly, 
so  shall  the  Son  of  man  be  in  the  heart  of  the  earth." 
The  circumstances  and  the  manner  of  these  two 
burials  were  very  different;  yet  none  but  a  caviller 
would  fix  on  the  points  of  difference,  because  the 
design  of  the  comparison  is  to  mark  the  points  of 
resemblance.  A  cavil  is  not  an  argument;  and  all 
emblems  furnish  occasions  for  cavils  of  this  kind, 
because  they  only  fix  on  one  or  more  prominent 
points  of  resemblance,  beyond  which  they  do  not 


100 

apply.  In  the  Lord's  supper,  the  broken  bread  is  an 
emblem  of  Christ's  body  broken  for  us ;  but  we  know 
that  of  that  body  "  not  a  bone  was  broken."  The 
breaking  of  bread  has  nothing  in  it  to  suggest  the 
idea  of  a  crucifixion;  but  when  any  ask,  "What 
mean  ye  by  this  service?  "  we  can  tell  them  what 
the  points  of  resemblance  are.  All  we  have  to  do,  is 
to  preserve  the  ordinance  as  it  was  delivered  unto  us; 
and  any  attempt  to  improve  it  would  be  as  sacri- 
legious as  an  attempt  to  destroy  it. 

What  we  have  said  is  a  sufficient  reply  to  the 
fifth  and  last  "difficulty"  suggested,  drawn  from 
the  fact  that  "Christ  was  not  buried  in  the  common 
way.  His  body  was  not  sunk  in  the  ground,  but 
merely  laid  axoay  on  a  shelf ^  in  a  chamber  of  an 
excavated  rock."  Nevertheless,  he  speaks  of  it  as  a 
real  burial,  saying  of  Mary's  anointing,  "  she  did  it 
for  my  burial;''''  and  if  he  wished  both  that  and  his 
resurrection  to  be  commemorated  in  the  initiating 
rite  of  his  religion,  no  emblem  could  possibly  be 
selected,  more  expressive  than  an  immersion,  fol- 
lowed by  an  immediate  rising  from  the  water. 

Now,  what  do  all  these  difficulties,  in  the  way  of 
the  obvious  interpretation  of  the  passage  in  the  sixth 
of  Romans,  amount  to?  Labor  spent  in  vain.  A 
person  indisposed  to  examine  them  one  by  one,  might 
be  impressed  by  the  mere  show  they  make,  when 
numbered,  and  standing  together.  He  might  take  it 
for  granted,  without  examination,  that  if  some  were 
invaUd,  one  might  be  sound.  But  at  the  first  touch, 
they  all  crumble.  They  are  like  a  tract,  entitled, 
"  One  hundred  Arguments  for  the  Infallibility  of  the 
Pope."  A  hundred  cyphers  in  a  row,  amount  to 
nothing. 

SUBSTITUTE    FOR    THE    COMMON    INTERPRETATION. 

But  what  is  the  interpretation  which  our  authors 
substitute  for  the  common  one?  Why,  they  aver, 
that  when  Paul  says  (Rom.  6:  3),  "Know  ye  not 


101 

that  so  many  of  you  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death?"  he  had  no 
reference  to  that  baptism  by  which  the  Romans  had 
professed  faith  in  a  risen  Saviour,  but  used  the  term 
figuratively,  to  denote  their  reception  of  the  Spirit's 
influences.  Yet,  nothing  is  more  evident  than  that 
the  apostle  recalls  to  their  memory  some  familiar 
facts,  obvious  to  the  view  of  an  objector  to  Christian 
doctrine,  and  adapted  to  meet  his  cavil.  The  cavil 
is  brought  to  view  in  the  first  verse,  and  is  to  this 
eftect :  if,  as  you  say,  Christianity  teaches  that  we 
are  not  saved  by  good  works,  but  by  mere  grace,  the 
practical  inference  is,  let  us  have  nothing  to  do  with 
good  works,  and  grace  will  abound  the  more  in  our 
pardon.  ('' Let  us  continue  in  sin,  that  grace  may 
abound.")  The  question  between  Paul  and  the 
objector  is,  whether  this  is  a  just  practical  inference 
from  what  had  been  said, — wJiether  this  is  the  real 
teaching  of  Christianity.  And  what,  from  "  the 
drift  of  Paul's  remarks,"  is  his  object  in  alluding  to 
baptism?  It  is,  to  bring  some  clear  proof  that  the 
practical  teaching  of  Christianity  is  contrary  to  the 
objector's  inference.  And  for  this,  would  Paul 
assume  that  the  Romans  had  all  received  the  Holy 
Spirit  from  heaven,  and  present  that  as  proof  to  an 
objector  against  the  apostolic  doctrine?  No.  He 
takes  what  was  palpable  and  obvious  to  every 
objector,  the  initiating  rite  of  Christianity,  and 
appeals  to  its  teachings, — appeals  to  the  holy  nature 
of  those  doctrines  of  which  it  is  the  emblem  and 
memorial.  This  would  fully  meet  the  case.  An 
ordinance,  known  to  proclaim  a  fundamental  doc- 
trine of  our  religioUj  that  Christ  was  "delivered  for 
our  oflences,  and  raised  again  for  our  justification," 
that  all  his  disciples  profess  at  the  outset  to  be  dead 
and  buried  to  the  world,  and  to  rise  up  to  a  "new- 
ness of  life,"  v/ould  present  a  most  eflective  argument, 
an  ocular  demonstration,  to  the  objector,  that  the 
teachings  of  Christianity  were  against  the  conclusion, 
9^ 


102 

let  us  "continue  in  sin."  The  true  inference,  then, 
would  be,  if  Christians  cherish  the  principles  pro- 
fessed in  their  baptism,  they  will  '-^reckon  themselves 
(v.  11)  to  be  dead  indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto 
God,  through  Jesus  Christ  their  Lord." 

Our  authors  object,  that  water  hcfptism  is  inade- 
quate to  produce  such  an  effect  as  death  to  sin.  Very 
true ;  but  the  principles  which  water  baptism  teach- 
es, always  do,  with  ''^absolute  certairity,^^  produce 
death  to  sin,  when  they  take  effect  upon  the  heart ; 
and,  therefore,  none  ought  to  be  baptized,  but  those 
who,  in  this  moral  sense,  have  died  to  sin.  And 
those  who  have  been  baptized,  ought  to  '^reckon 
themselves  dead  indeed  unto  sin."  They  remark, 
again,  "it  is  not  enough  to  say,  such  ought  to  be  dead 
to  sin  ;"  but  this  is  just  what  Paul  does  say ;  "  There- 
fore we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death, 
that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by 
the  glory  of  the  Father,  so  we  also  should  walk  in 
NEWNESS  OF  LIFE."  That  iu  the  passage  before  us, 
the  apostle  speaks  of  literal  baptism,  is  as  evident  as 
that  he  speaks  of  it  any  where.  He  compares  our 
rising  in  baptism  to  Christ's  resurrection,  saying, 
^^  Like  as  Christ  ivas  raised  fro7n  the  dead?''  Was 
not  his  a  litercd  burial  and  resurrection  7 

IS  THE  LANGUAGE  LITERAL    OR    FIGURATIVE,  IN  ROM.  6:3? 

The  great  question  which  our  authors  have  seen 
fit  to  discuss,  touching  the  passage  before  us,  is, 
whether  the  baptism  spoken  of  is  literal  or  figurative. 
They  say  that  a  literal  baptism  is  entirely  out  of 
view.  We  say  that  the  apostle  had  it  in  view,  and 
is  setting  forth  its  spiritual  or  emblematic  meaning. 
Now,  is  there  any  rule,  to  aid  us  in  determining 
whether  language  is  literal  or  figurative?  Is  there 
any  thing  in  the  science  of  interpretation?  If  so,  let 
us  avail  ourselves  of  it.  In  Professor  Stuart's 
translation  of  Ernesti  on  the  Principles  of  Interpre- 
tation (3d  edit.,  p.  74),  the  following  rule  is  laid 


m 

down  for  this  purpose:  ''Words  are  tropical  (or 
figurative)  where  the  subject  and  predicate  disagree." 
Where  the  thing  spoken  of  in  a  sentence,  and  the 
thing  asserted  of  it,  are  incongruous  in  their  nature, 
the  language  must  be  figurative.  For  instance,  the 
fields  smile,  the  stones  cry  out,  the  trees  clap  their 
hands,  &c.  So,  when  men  are  spoken  of  as  receiv- 
ing a  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  the  language  must  be 
figurative,  because  it  is  impossible  that  the  Spirit  can 
be  literally  appUed  to  a  human  body,  by  sprinkling, 
pouring,  immersion,  or  any  other  way.  But  when 
baptism  "in  the  river  Jordan"  is  spoken  of,  or  bap- 
tism in  any  other  water,  the  language  is  known  to 
be  literal,  because  the  subject  and  predicate  of  the 
sentence  are  congruous  in  their  nature.  We  may 
say  at  one  time,  that  a  man  is  buried  in  sleep,  in 
amusement,  in  care, — immersed  in  business,  in  study, 
— "dipped  deeply  in  philosophy;"  at  another,  that 
he  is  buried  in  the  sea,  in  the  ruins  of  a  city,  or  in  a 
shady  grove, — without  causing  confusion  of  ideas  to 
the  plainest  peasant;  because  the  principle  here 
stated  by  Ernesti,  strikes  the  mind  at  once,  whether 
it  be  recognized  in  form  or  not.  So,  too,  if  you 
speak  of  a  man  being  buried  by  a  storm  of  snow,  by 
a  flood  of  waters,  or  by  immersion  in  a  lake,  the 
subject  and  predicate  of  the  sentence  are  seen  to  be 
congruous  in  their  nature,  and  therefore  the  language 
is  knoion  to  be  Utercd.  But  if  you  should  speak  of 
one  being  buried  by  a  gentle  sprinkling,  or  a  slight 
pouring,  any  mere  man  might  be  excused  for  con- 
fessing his  ignorance  of  what  to  make  of  such  lan- 
guage. He  would  be  fairly  puzzled,  to  know  whether 
he  should  call  it  literal  or  figurative.  There  might 
be  no  incongruity  between  the  subject  and  predicate 
of  the  sentence,  as  to  their  nature, — the  substance 
spoken  of  might  be  adapted  to  burial,  as  dust,  or 
water;  but  how  a  gentle  sprinkling  or  a  slight  pour- 
ing could  amount  to  burial,  Avould  be  the  puzzling 
query.     This  would  be  the  incongruity  of  contradic- 


104 

tion.  Now,  as  my  opponents  have  conceded  that  I 
have  proved  that  the  word  baptize  means  immersion 
in  some  cases,  moreover,  that  it  often  means  immer- 
sion,, and  as  between  immersion  and  burying  there 
is  no  incongruity^  they  must  admit,  in  view  of  the 
rule  just  cited,  that  when  Paul  speaks  of  being  buried 
by  and  in  baptism^  either  that  he  refers  to  literal 
immersion,  or  utters  a  literal  contradiction. 

Keeping  in  mind  the  rule  just  mentioned,  we  pro- 
ceed to  observe,  that  when  Paul  (in  Col.  2:  11) 
speaks  of  "circumcision  made  without  hands,"  he 
evidently  uses  figurative  language ;  for  circumcision, 
the  subject  spoken  of,  and  the  thing  predicated  of  it, 
"  made  without  hands,"  present  ideas  incongruous  in 
their  nature.  To  interpret  that  language  literally, 
would  be  to  assert  an  impossibility,  a  contradiction. 
But  when,  in  the  next  verse  (12th),  the  apostle 
speaks  of  a  burial  performed  by  baptism  (which 
"q/5fe?2"  means  immersion),  the  two  ideas  are  con- 
gruous, and  the  language  must  be  literal.  To  this, 
our  authors  suggest  (p.  27),  that  the  Colossians,  in 
their  baptism,  ^^  had  7-iscn  through  faith  of  the  opera- 
tion of  God.  Yet  j)ersons  immersed  do  not  rise  by 
faiths  Yes,  in  our  baptism,  all  our  fellowship  of 
spirit,  all  our  sympathy  of  feeling,  with  Jesus  in  the 
design  of  his  baptism,  is  by  faith;  and  this  is  the 
apostle's  idea,  for  he  says,  ye  are  "buried  with  him 
in  baptism,  wherein  ye  are  risen  with  htm,  through 
faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  raised  him  from 
the  dead."  He  pursues  the  thought  in  the  third 
chapter,  saying,  "If  ye  then  be  risen  with  Christ, 
seek  those  things  which  are  above,  where  Christ 
sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God."  As  it  is  in  the 
Lord's  supper,  we  literally  cat  bread  and  drink  wine, 
this  is  not  by  faith.  But  our  communion  luith  Christ 
and  the  church  in  those  acts,  is  by  faith;  for,  "the 
cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  com- 
munion of  the  blood  of  Christ?  the  bread  which  we 
break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ?" 
In  that  holy  feast,  we  do  spiritually,  by  faith,  "open 


105 

the  door,"  and  he  comes  in  to  sup  with  us,  and  we 
with  him. 

The  fact  that  this  figurative  circumcision  is  spoken 
of  in  the  verse  preceding  that  wherein  baptism  is 
mentioned,  is  no  proof  at  all  that  the  latter  is  figura- 
tive. For  in  the  seventh  verse  of  the  same  chapter, 
we  have  figurative  and  literal  language  in  the  closest 
possible  connection  :  "  Rooted  and  built  up  in  him, 
and  established  in  the  faith."  We  see  it  also  in 
connection  with  baptism,  in  Acts  22:  16;  "Arise 
and  be  baptized,  and  icash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord." 

Another  important  rule,  stated  by  Ernesti  in  con- 
nection with  this  subject  (p.  77),  is  entitled,  ^^ Method 
of  determining  luhether  a  trope  is  adequately  under- 
stoodP  He  says,  "Tt  is  one  proof  that  you  under- 
stand tropical  language,  if  you  can  substitute  proper 
words  for  tropical  ones.  Not  that  a  person  who  can 
do  this  always  understands  the  words ;  but  if  he 
cannot  do  it,  he  certainly  does  wo^  understand  them." 
If,  then,  in  the  passages  before  us,  baptism  be  used 
only  in  a  figurative  sense,  let  our  authors  substitute 
their  favorite  literal  words  for  it,  and  see  how  appo- 
site they  would  be:  ''Therefore  we  are  buried  with 
him  by  sprinklbig  into  death — buried  with  him  in 
sprinkling — buried  ivith  him  by  pourings  wherein  ye 
also  are  risen  with  him — buried  with  him  by  purifi- 
cation.^ Really,  this  would  be  verifying  Paulas 
supposition  addressed  to  the  Corinthians  (I  Cor.  14 : 
11),  "If  I  know  not  the  meaning  of  the  voice,  he 
that  speaketh  shall  be  a  barbarian  unto  me."  But 
substitute  immersion,  and  all  is  lucid  :  ^buried  with 
him  by  immersion  into  death — buried  with  him  in 
immersion^  wherein  ye  also  are  risen  with  him.' 
"Planted  together  (by  immersion)  in  the  likeness  of 
his  deaths' ^  &c.  On  this  last  verse,  McKnight  beau- 
tifully observes,  "The  burying  of  Christ  and  of 
believers,  first  in  the  water  of  baptism,  and  after- 
wards in  the  earth,  is  fitly  enough  compared  to  the 


106 

planting  of  seeds  in  the  earth,  because  the  effect  in 
both  cases  is  a  reviviscence  to  a  state  of  greater 
perfection." 

We  might  apply  the  same  rule  to  Peter's  declara- 
tion (1  Pet.  3:  21),  touching  the  meaning  of  the 
figure  by  which  baptism  represents  our  salvation : 
"The  like  figure,  whereunto  even  baptism  doth  also 
now  save  us,  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ." 
Can  sprinkling  or  pouring  be  the  figure  of  a  resur- 
rection ? 

Evident  as  it  is,  that  the  common  and  obvious 
interpretation  of  these  passages  which  speak  of  burial 
with  Christ  in  baptism,  is  not  an  error,  it  is  interest- 
ing to  see  hoAV  gravely  the  gentlemen  proceed  to 
exhibit  the  "sources"  of  what  they  call  "the  Im- 
mersers'  error  touching  them."  Here,  they  chiefly 
repeat  what  they  have  said  before.  One  suggestion, 
however,  at  this  point,  seems  quite  original.  That 
is,  that  "  the  first  source  of  error  is  the  imagination.^^ 
The  Tmmerser  ^^ fancies  some  analogy  between  im- 
mersion and  Christ's  burial."  Now,  this  remark 
exhibits  "the  source"  of  our  friends'  failure  in  their 
argument.  The  meaning  of  these  passages  lies  low 
and  level  to  the  eye  of  common  sense ;  but  they  have 
followed  out  their  plan  of  shooting  high,  as  at  "  an 
airy  fancy  on  the  wing,"  and  so  have  gone  quite 
over  the  heads  of  plain  readers  of  the  Scriptures. 
But  what  is  very  remarkable,  is,  that  the  gentlemen 
did  not  know,  or  have  forgotten  the  fact,  that  this 
fancy  has  nestled  in  the  heads  of  most  of  the  stand- 
ard Pedobaptist  writers,  in  every  age.  Men  who 
have  practised  sprinkling,  have  freely  testified,  as 
scholars  and  interpreters,  that  these  passages  took 
their  rise  in  the  primitive  practice  of  immersion. 
McKnight,  whom  I  have  quoted,  alludes  to  Beza, 
who  certainly  teaches  this,  in  the  most  explicit 
manner.  Grotius,  of  the  Dutch  church,  says  on 
these  passages,  "  Not  only  the  word  baptism,  but  the 
very  form  of  it,  intimates  this.     For  an  immersion 


107 

of  the  whole  body  in  water,  so  that  it  is  no  longer 
beheld,  bears  an  image  of  that  burial  which  is  given 
to  the  dead.  There  was  in  baptism,  as  administered 
in  former  times,  an  image  both  of  a  burial  and  a 
resurrection."  Dr.  Hammond,  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, says,  on  Rom.  6:3,  "It  is  a  thing  that  every 
Christian  knows,  that  the  immersion  in  baptism 
refers  to  the  death  of  Christ ;  the  putting  the  person 
into  the  water,  denotes  and  proclaims  the  death  and 
burial  of  Christ."  Burkitt  says,  on  the  same  pas- 
sage, "  The  apostle  alludes,  7io  douht,  to  the  ancient 
manner  and  way  of  baptizing  persons  in  those  hot 
countries,  which  was  by  immersion,  or  putting  them 
under  the  water  for  a  time,  and  then  raising  them 
up  again  out  of  the  water;  which  rite  had  also  a 
mystical  signification,  representing  the  burial  of  our 
old  man,  sin  in  us,  and  our  resurrection  to  newness 
of  life."  Precisely  the  same  idea  is  stated  by 
Witsius,  Whitby,  Bishop  Patrick,  Bishop  Taylor, 
and  Bishop  Hoadly,  the  last  of  whom  has  used 
language  fully  as  strong  as  I  could  wish  to  com- 
mand, saying  of  the  times  of  the  apostles,  "7/"  bap- 
tism, had  been  then  perforTned  as  it  is  ?iow  amongst 
us,  we  shoidd  never  have  so  7mwh  as  heard  of  this 
form,  of  ex2:>ression,  of  dybig  and  rising  again  in  this 
rite:'     (See  Hoadly's  Works,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  890.) 

Why  should  I  go  on  to  quote  these,  and  a  host  of 
others,  more  largely?  They  all  unite  in  the  same 
view  of  these  texts.  Those  quotations  which  I  have 
made,  though  brief,  are  of  so  decisive  a  character,  as 
to  show  for  themselves  that  they  do  not  misrepresent 
the  opinions  of  their  authors.  And  in  what  a  pitiful 
plight  do  they  place  the  assertion,  that  this  view  is  a 
mere  fancy  and  a  peculiar  error  of  the  Baptists. 
How  clearly  do  they  show,  that  if  the  Baptists  err, 
they  err  with  the  learning  of  the  world  on  their  side; 
and  that  if  the  leading  writers  of  various  churches 
and  different  ages  practised  sprinkling,  it  was  not  at 
the  sacrifice  of  scholarship  and  candor. 


108 

Among  '-'important  matters  omitted,"  our  authors 
place  next  in  order  their  presumptive  arguments 
against  immersion.  But  why  should  I  notice  these? 
If  the  baptismal  law  is  clear  and  explicit,  these  have 
no  force  against  it ;  and  if  that  law  is  not  explicit 
and  determinate,  our  liberty  to  do  as  we  please, 
touching  baptism,  follows  of  course,  without  any 
such  array  of  reasons.  Suppose  a  Papist  should 
"present  to  me  presumptive  arguments  in  favor  of 
withholding  the  wine  from  the  people  in  the  eucha- 
rist,  drawn  from  convenience,  cheapness,  simplicity, 
sobriety,  indifference  of  outward  forms,  the  superior 
decency  of  the  priest  taking  the  cup  alone  in  behalf 
of  the  people,  instead  of  passing  it  from  lip  to  lip, — 
would  I  answer  these  in  detail  ?  It  would  be  use- 
less. I  would  bring  to  bear  upon  him  the  plain 
command,  "  Drink  ye  all  of  it."  If  he  should  tram- 
ple on  this,  and  continue  to  urge  his  presumptive 
arguments,  I  would  only  adopt  the  psalmist's  prayer, 
"Lord,  keep  back  thy  servant  from  presumptuous 
sins." 

As  to  the  remarks  (p.  86)  on  my  omitting  to  notice 
the  suggestions  touching  "the  degree  of  certainty" 
which  my  cause  demands,  I  cannot  see  any  occasion 
for  them.  It  is  evident,  from  my  Review,  that  I  took 
the  ground  that  the  Scriptures  set  forth  immersion  as 
the  only  apostolic  baptism,  with  as  much  certainty  as 
any  subject  can  be  exhibited  by  means  of  words  as 
signs  of  ideas. 

In  regard  to  the  section  on  page  87  of  the  Rejoin- 
der, designed  to  give  a  general  statement  of  what  I 
have  attempted  to  prove,  sufficient  has  been  said  on 
pages  nine  and  ten  of  this  Examination.  I  proceed 
to  notice  the  s.ection,  entitled, 

learned  critics  and  theologians. 

This  consists  of  sentences  from  the  writings  of 
learned  Pedobaptists,  men  who  practised  sprinkling, 
containing  the  expression  of  opinions  in  favor  of  that 


109 

practice.  No  doubt,  in  this  way  a  long  chapter 
might  easily  be  made.  No  doubt,  all  Pedobaptist 
theologians  have  been  disposed  to  defend  the  custom 
of  their  church,  on  some  ground  or  other.  But 
whether  those  of  them  who  are  really  eminent  schol- 
ars, have  made  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word  the 
basis  of  their  argument,  is  a  distinct  and  an  impor- 
tant question.  Having  presented  a  number  of  quota- 
tions, my  reviewers  say,  "In  view  of  these  facts,  in 
what  light  appears  Mr.  Hague's  turgid  boast,  that  all 
the  learning  of  the  world  sustains  his  side  of  the 
controversy  ?  He  is  confounded  by  his  own  wit- 
nesses." In  connection  with  this  remark,  they 
exhibit  a  list  of  names,  to  which  I  made  no  reference 
at  all, — the  names  of  men  whose  works  are  almost 
entirely  inaccessible  to  the  American  public,  and 
whose  writings  the  gentlemen  have  not  quoted, 
with  those  references  to  the  edition  and  the  page, 
which  would  enable  a  reader  to  examine  them  for 
himself  Was  it  expected  by  our  authors,  that  only 
those  would  read  their  book  who  would  take  every 
thing  on  trust,  nor  cherish  one  wish  to  verify  their 
assertions? 

Out  of  a  list  of  thirty-seven  names,  there  are  only 
three  whom  I  summoned  as  "  witnesses."  These 
are  Luther,  Calvin  and  Beza.  They  are  names  of 
note,  and  my  claims  to  their  testimony  on  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  baptize,  the  only  point  on  which  I 
appealed  to  them,  may  be  easily  vindicated. 

(I.)  As  to  Luther,  the  reader  has  seen  how  ample 
and  clear  is  the  testimony  which  I  have  cited  on 
pages  22 — 25  of  this  pamphlet.  Let  him  ponder  that 
soberly.  He  may  consider,  also,  this  which  I  now 
add  from  Luther's  works:  "The  other  thing  which 
belongs  to  baptism,  is  the  sign  or  the  sacrament, 
which  is  the  dipping  into  the  water,  from  whence 
also  it  hath  its  name.  For  to  baptize,  in  Greek,  is 
to  dip,  and  baptizing  is  dipping."  "  Baptism  is  a 
sign  both  of  death  and  resurrection.  Being  moved 
10 


110 

by  this  reason,  I  would  have  those  who  are  to  be 
baptized,  to  be  altogether  dipt  into  the  water,  as  the 
word  doth  express,  and  the  mystery  doth  signify."  ^ 
Neither  of  these  remarks  of  the  reformer  is  a  mere 
"casual  expression,  which  gives  a  clue  to  his  opin- 
ions," as  our  authors  designate  some  expressions 
which  they  quote;  each  one  is  a  bold,  simple, 
decisive  expression  of  the  truth.  Will  the  gentlemen 
meet  what  I  here  bring  forward  fairly,  and  invalidate 
these  citations,  or  else  concede  my  claim  to  Luther's 
testimony? 

(2.)  As  to  Calvin,  I  quoted  him  as  a  scholar  on 
the  meaning  of  the  word,  declaring  that  on  that 
ground  he  founded  no  defence  of  sprinkling.  If  he 
draws  an  argument  from  convenience,  or  the  fitness 
of  sprinkling  as  a  symbol  of  a  spiritual  truth,  that 
is  quite  another  thing,  and  each  one,  for  himself, 
may  judge  of  its  worth.  But  my  opponents  have 
quoted  nothing  from  him  which  really  affects  my 
position.  Their  last  citation  has  some  appearance 
of  doing  this,  but  then,  they  have  taken  only  half  of 
the  sentence;  the  other  half  and  the  succeeding  one 
explain  Calvin's  views.  T  will  quote  them  in  con- 
nection, placing  the  quotation  of  the  Rejoinder  in 
smaller  print,  so  as  to  mark  it  distinctly. 

"  But,  whether  the  person  baptized  be  wholly  immersed,  and 
whether  thrice  or  not,  or  whether  water  be  only  poured  or 
sprinkled  upon  him,  is  of  no  importance." 

Here  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne's  quotation  ends, 
and  some  exulting  expressions  follow.  Calvin  pro- 
ceeds, "Churches  ought  to  be  left  at  liberty  to  act 
according  to  the  difference  of  countries.  The  very 
word  baptize,  however,  signifies  to  immerse,  and  it 
is  certain  that  immersion  was  the  practice  of  the 
ancient  church. "t  Here,  we  see,  the  word  however 
marks  the  transition  from  Calvin's  expressing  a 
theological  opinion,  to  his  asserting  the  real  force  of 

*  Works,  Wittenburg  edit,,  Tom.  II,  Fol.  79.     t  Institutes,  Book  IV,  Chap.  15. 


Ill 

the  word.  On  this  point,  his  declaration  is  expHcit, 
his  concession  is  ample.  Although  this  reformer  did 
not,  Hke  Luther,  endeavor  fully  to  restore  immersion, 
yet  they  both  agree  as  to  the  import  of  the  term. 

What  an  unfortunate  remark  my  reviewers  have 
littered,  when  they  say,  "Probably,  Mr.  Hague  had 
never  read  Calvin,  and  cited  him  on  the  authority  of 
some  controversialist  on  his  side  of  the  question." 
This  places  me  under  the  necessity  of  assuring  them, 
that  I  have  a  manuscript,  containing  this  extract 
from  Calvin,  penned  by  my  own  hand,  long  before  I 
had  the  pleasure  of  knov/ing  either  of  their  names. 
Before  I  received  ordination  to  the  ministry,  I  con- 
sulted Calvin  on  this  point,  and  this  concession  made 
a  strong  impression  on  my  mind.  ^ 

(3.)  My  third  witness  on  this  list  is  Beza.  They 
say  that  I  quote  him  ''  with  an  air  of  triumph,"  and 
add,  "but  if  Mr.  Hague  will  adopt  Beza's  sentiments, 
•there  will  be  no  further  need  of  controversy."  There 
is  a  little  sophistry  in  this, — an  evasion  of  the  point. 
I  spoke  of  Beza  among  the  adherents  of  the  custom 
of  sprinkling,  and  cited  his  testimony,  as  a  scholar, 
on  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptize.  This  testimony 
I  urged  as  a  concession.  His  practice  of  sprinkling 
rested  on  other  grounds.  His  assertion  of  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  is  explicit.  He  declares  what  it 
does  mean,  and  what  it  does  not.  (1.)  He  says  it 
means  more  than  /e^rtTtrefr  (to  v/ash  hands),  because 
this  has  respect  only  to  the  hands;  baptism,  to  the 
whole  body.  (2.)  He  says,  "To  be  baptized  in 
water,  signifies  no  other  than  to  be  immersed  in 
water,  which  is  the  external  ceremony  of  baptism." 
He  declares,  "nor  does  haptizein  signify  to  wash, 
except  by  consequence."  This  is  positive  and 
exclusive.  Besides  the  quotation  in  my  Review,  let 
the  reader  notice  that  on  the  15th  page  of  this  Ex- 
amination. Our  authors  quote  Beza  as  saying,  "yet 
baptizo  is  taken  more  largely  for  any  kind  of  wash- 
ing, where  there  is  no  dipping  at  all."     Well,  Lutlier 


112 

said  it  is  so  taken,  but  declared  that  it  could  not  be 
done  properly,  and  therefore  he  wished  immersion  to 
be  restored.  That  it  is  so  taken  now-a-days,  is  a 
fact  which  all  admit;  but  whether  it  ought  to  be  so, 
is  an  important  question.  That  it  was  so  taken  in 
Beza's  day,  and  had  been  long  before,  is  evident. 
But  Beza  denied  that  this  usage,  introduced  by  the 
Latins,  was  in  accordance  with  j;he  proper  meaning 
of  the  term.  Our  authors  ask,  "  But  does  Beza  say 
that  it  means  no^Ai??^  but  imme?'sio7i7^^  I  answer, 
yes;  his  position  is  p^recisely  that  which  1  maintain 
in  relation  to  it.  Can  any  words  be  clearer  than 
those  which  I  have  quoted?  They  ask,  again, 
"Does  Beza  say  that  immersion  is  essential  to  the 
rite?"  That  is  a  different  question.  If  Beza  had 
been  asked,  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  words  bread 
and  whte,  in  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  supper,  he 
would  undoubtedly  have  given  the  same  answer  that 
I  should  to  that  question.  But  whether  he  would 
agree  with  those  who  say  that  these  elements  are 
not  essential  to  the  rite,  and  that,  under  some  circum- 
stances, "fish  and  water"  would  answer  the  pur- 
pose, would  remain  to  be  seen.  A  man's  assertion 
about  the  sense  of  words  is  one  thing ;  his  specula- 
tive opinions  about  the  nature  and  importance  of 
rites,  is  another  thing.  For  instance,  the  Quakers 
do  not  hold  to  the  necessity  of  water  baptism  at  all ; 
but  they  are  strong  in  their  assertion  of  the  meaning 
of  the  term.  Barclay,  one  of  their  leading  writers, 
says,  the  Greek  word  baptizo  signifies  immerse,  that 
is,  to  plunge  and  dip  in;  and  that  was  the  proper 
use  of  water  baptism  among  the  Jews,  and  also  by 
John  and  the  primitive  Christians  who  used  it; 
whereas  our  adversaries  only  sprinkle  a  little  water 
on  the  forehead,  which  doth  not  at  all  answer  to  the 
word  baptism."  =^  William  Penn  and  other  Friends 
assert  the  same  thing;    and  as   they  set  aside  all 

*  Works,  Provulence  edit.,  p.  4-10. 


113 

outward  modes,  they  may  be  considered  impartial 
umpires  on  this  question. 

In  perfect  keeping  with  the  editorial  style  of  writ- 
ing, and  that  tact  in  controversy  recommended  in 
the  columns  of  the  Puritan,  our  authors  roundly 
assert,  that  I  have  been  "proclaiming  to  the  v/orld 
that  Beza  is  a  close-communion  Immerser !"  And 
yet,  on  page  26  of  my  Review,  I  was  particular  to 
state  his  character  and  position,  and  to  add,  that  he 
was  not  a  Baptist  in  practice.  I  would  not  censure 
my  opponents  for  cherishing  some  warmth  of  feeling 
in  defending  their  sentiments  ;  but  this  statement 
seems  to  glow  with  a  spirit  somev/hat  malign.  They 
add,  "  we  are  almost  tempted  to  exclaim,  O  shame  ! 
where  is  thy  blush  !"  If  this  expression  followed  the 
discovery  of  some  mistake  on  my  part,  I  should  not 
object  to  it,  even  though  it  were  severe^  for  truth  is 
sometimes  severe.  But  connected  as  it  is  with  an 
assertion  so  obviously  unfounded,  I  deplore  it  as 
seeming  like  the  eftervescence  of  a  ruffled  mind,  the 
expression  of  a  feeling  which  it  ill  becomes  Christian 
teachers  to  indulge. 

Having  established  my  claim  to  the  testimony  of 
the  witnesses  whom  I  cited,  I  would  remark  respect- 
ing others  whom  my  reviev/ers  have  alluded  to,  that 
where  they  express  their  sentiments  in  favor  of 
sprinkling  on  account  of  convenience,  custom,  the 
indifference  of  Christianity  to  all  outward  forms,  on 
the  fitness  of  sprinkling  as  a  symbol  of  some  spiritual 
truth,  that  quotations  touching  these  arguments,  are 
not  at  all  to  tlie  point,  when  the  great  question  is, 
what  is  the  meaning  of  the  v/ord  ?  If  the  principle, 
that  "the  Bible  alone  is  the  rule  of  faith,"  be  that 
TRUTH  which  is  the  life  of  Protestantism,  and  if  the 
v/ord  baptize,  in  Christ's  commission,' properly  means 
immerse,  as  Luther,  Calvin  and  Beza  declare,  then, 
we  have  no  resort  but  to  obey  that  command,  or 
prove  untrue  to  the  vital  spirit -of  the  Reformation. 
The  inconsistency  of  the. early  Protestants  on  this 
10^' 


114 

point,  was  often  urged  against  them  by  Catholic  writ- 
ers with  very  great  effect. 

Here  we  see  on  what  side  of  the  controversy  stands 
the  general 

LITERATURE  OF  THE  WORLD. 

Referring  to  my  remark,  that  the  literature  of  the 
world  is  with  us  on  this  point,  my  Reviewers  say, 
"  this  is  comforting,  if  true."  I  assent  to  this,  and 
add,  it  is  true  as  it  is  comforting.  When  we  leave 
the  realm  of  dogmatic  theology,  and  turn  to  those 
works  which  represent  the  literature  of  the  world  in 
history  and  philology,  what  do  we  find?  All  that 
we  wish,  to  establish  our  position.  Does  such  a 
work  as  the  Edinburgh  Encyclopedia  represent  any 
part  of  European  literature  ?  The  very  sentence 
which  I  have  quoted  on  page  39,  from  Jones'  Biblical 
Cyclopedia,  and  refused  to  urge  it  on  the  attention  of 
my  reader  as  authority,  because  that  author  was  a 
Baptist,  may  be  found,  word  for  word,  in  the  Edin- 
burgh Encyclopedia,  and  as  coming  from  such  a 
source,  I  now  ask  the  reader  to  re-peruse  it  as  a  por- 
tion of  the  world's  literature.  Does  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannica  deserve  to  be  named  as  a  standard  work 
of  British  literature?  It  takes  the  same  ground  on 
this  point  as  the  Edinburgh,  and  asserts  that  sprink- 
ling was  introduced  into  England  from  a  regard  to 
convenience,  and  that  immersion  was  "  at  length 
quite  excluded,"  through  the  influence  of  the  church 
of  Geneva  in  the  days  of  queen  Elizabeth.  Is  the 
Encyclopedia  Americana  a  work  of  any  literary 
note?  It  takes  a  similar  position,  speaks  of  the 
custom  of  sprinkling  having  been  received  from  the 
Romish  church  by  Protestants,  and  being  now 
practised  by  all  of  them  except  the  Baptists.  The 
Encyclopedia  Ecclesiastica,  published  under  the 
sanction  of  the  highest  literary  names  in  England, 
states  the  same  thing,  and  declares,  that  when 
in   ancient  times,   sprinkling   was   admitted  in  be- 


115 

half  of  persons,  in  great  necessity,  "  at  the  point 
of  death  on  a  bed  of  sickness,  it  was  considered  in- 
deed as  not  giving  the  party  the  full  privileges  of 
baptism."  Such  men  as  Porson,  Neander,  and  Au- 
giisti,  speaking  as  literary  men,  use  the  strongest 
expressions,  the  last  of  them  saying,  "  the  word  bap- 
tism, according  to  etymology  and  usage,  signifies  to 
immerse,  submerge,  &c. ;  and  the  choice  of  the  word 
betrays  an  age  in  which  the  later  custom  of  sprink- 
ling had  not  been  introduced." 

Most  of  these  great  works  our  readers  can  consult 
for  themselves;  and  if  these  things  be  so,  and  the 
Protestant  principle  be  just,  that  the  Bible  alone  is 
the  rule  of  faith,  it  evidently  follows  that  the  com- 
mission of  our  Lord  binds  us  to  immersion. 

THE  CITATIONS    FROM    THE  CLASSICS, 

were  shown  in  my  Review,  to  have  been  falsely  ap- 
plied by  the  authors  of  the  "Hints."  I  selected  the 
strongest,  especially  the  one  printed  in  capitals, 
showed  the  fallacy  of  their  application  and  the  prin- 
ciple on  which  all  the  rest  may  be  set  aside.  There 
are  two  important  facts,  however,  connected  with 
these  cases,  which  I  did  not  mention.  I  will  now 
state  the  facts,  and  the  reason  why  I  did  not  men- 
tion them. 

(1.)  The  first  fact  is  this :  those  Greek  sentences 
on  which  my  opponents  rely,  to  show  that  the  word 
baptize  does  not  define  any  way  of  applying  water, 
contain  a  word  which  is  never  used  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament to  designate  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  That  ' 
word  is  bapto ;  the  word  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  baptizo.  (2.)  Between  these  words  there  is 
a  marked  difference.  The  latter  is  a  consecrated 
term,  uniformly  applied  by  Christ  and  his  apostles 
to  his  ordinance.  The  first  (bapto)  is  never  used  to 
denote  the  ordinance,  and  the  second  (baptizo)  is 
never  used  to  denote  the  act  of  dyeing  or  coloring. 


116 

Of  course,  all  those  examples  quoted  by  my  oppo- 
nents, containing  only  the  word  hapto^  fail  to  answer 
their  purpose.  They  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  'proof s ; 
for  how  can  we  prove  the  import  of  a  rite,  by  means 
of  a  word  which  is  never  applied  to  it  ? 

The  reasons  of  my  not  mentioning  these  facts  in 
my  Review  were  these.  When  I  wrote  that  brief 
pamphlet,  I  was  aware  that  Dr.  Carson  had  brought 
out  this  distinction  clearly.  But  I  had  resolved  at 
the  outset  to  quote  no  Baptist  writer  as  authority; 
knowing  that  among  the  Pedobaptists  themselves, 
professed  scholars  somewhat  removed  from  the  din 
of  controversy,  had  furnished  ample  means  of  con- 
futing my  opponents.  And  not  having  read  the  arti- 
cle of  Prof.  Stnart  since  the  year  1833,  when  jt  was 
published,  and  then,  with  an  eye  to  the  main  points 
only,  it  did  not  occur  to  me  that  he  had  also  marked 
this  distinction,  and  expressed  his  full  agreement 
with  Dr.  Carson  on  this  point.  Prof.  Stuart  read  Dr. 
Carson's  work,  while  his  own  article  was  going 
through  the  press,  and  refers  his  reader  to  it  for 
more  copious  illustration.  Not  remembering  this  at 
the  time,  I  refused  to  avail  myself  of  the  distinction 
pointed  out  by  Dr.  Carson.  It  was  not  necessary 
for  me  to  do  it,  because  to  me  it  is  evident,  that  the 
primary  meaning  of  bapto  has  never  been  lost,  but 
that  it  lives  and  modifies  all  the  applications  of  the 
word  ;  or  as  Dr.  Carson  himself  declares  (p.  74), 
"  These  two  meanings,  dip  and  dye,  are  as  parent 
and  child."  But  since  I  find,  on  re-examining  Prof. 
Stuart's  treatise,  that  he  also  is  clear  and  decisive  in 
stating  the  difference,  and  that  it  cannot  bo  called  a 
pecuharity  of  the  Baptists,  I  am  ready  to  propose  it, 
and  call  on  all  our  readers  to  observe,  that  my  oppo- 
nents, in  order  to  prove  their  point,  rely  on  the  sec- 
ondary meaning  of  a  word,  which  is  never  used  in 
the  Bible  to  denote  the  ordintmcc  of  baptism.  As 
the  inspired  writers  carefully  avoid  the  application 
of  the  shorter  word  used  by  dyers  to  the  sacred  rite, 


117 

there  must  have  been  in  this,  some  design  of  the  di- 
vine Spirit ;  and  our  authors  have  not  pleaded  one 
instance  in  their  own  favor,  in  which  the  word  used 
in  the  New  Testament  occurs  at  all  7  In  their  exam- 
ples, however,  they  cover  up  this  fact  from  the  eye 
of  the  English  reader,  by  putting  the  English  word 
(baptize)  in  a  parenthesis,  instead  of  spelling  the 
Greek  word,  so  as  to  show  which  of  the  two  they 
employ. 

As  I  said,  I  did  not  intend  to  avail  myself  of  this 
distinction,  until  I  found  that  Prof.  Stuart  stands  up 
with  Dr.  Carson  as  a  witness,  to  all  Pedobaptists,  of 
the  important  fact.  Although  apart  from  this  dis- 
tinction, it  may  be  proved  most  clearly,  that  Christ 
enjoined  immersion  in  the  commission,  yet  the  state- 
ment just  made,  is  a  mighty  stride  towards  settling 
the  controversy.  All  who  look  closely  at  the  subject 
see  it  to  be  so,  and  when  Dr.  Carson  defies  all  the 
Greek  scholars  in  the  world  to  produce  an  instance 
in  which  (baptizo)  baptize  means  to  dye  or  color, 
if  his  position  be  maintained,  they  well  know  the 
ultimate  result,  in  a  land  where  intelligence  is  dif- 
fused, where  conscience  is  free,  and  the  Bible  exalted 
as  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  They  see  the 
wisdom  of  Prof  Stuart,  in  placing  his  adherence  to 
sprinkling,  not  so  much  on  the  ground  of  scriptural 
evidence,  as  on  the  indifference  of  all  modes. 

In  the  preceding  remarks,  the  reader  will  see  the 
reason  why  Dr.  Carson  manifests  so  little  interest  in 
contending  for  those  examples  in  which  the  word 
ba])to  occurs.  His  mind  is  filled  with  the  importance 
of  the  fact,  that  this  word  is  never  used  to  designate 
the  Christian  rite,  and  that  it  is  not  the  turning  point 
of  the  controversy.  He  feels  strong,  too,  in  his  posi- 
tion, that  the  word  which  is  applied  to  the  ordinance, 
is  never  used  by  dyers,  nor  applied  to  the  act  of 
coloring.  He  is  desirous  to  narrow  the  ground  of 
controversy,  and  is  prepared  to  say  to  all  his  oppo- 
nents.   Now,  brethren,   what  will  you  do  7     Your 


118 

arguments  for  different  modes  are  built  on  the  secon- 
dary use  of  hapio^  and  are  not  apposite  to  this  case. 
Even  if  I  should  concede  all  that  you  wish  as  to 
that  word,  you  will  not  have  touched  the  main  point 
in  question.  And  I  defy  you  to  prove,  that  in  Greek 
literature,  the  word  baptizo  must  necessarily  have 
any  secondary  meaning  at  all. 

In  connection  with  their  remarks  on  the  classical 
use  of  the  words,  our  authors  introduce  a  letter  from 
Rev.  Edward  Beecher,  D.  D,,  called  forth  by  a  refer- 
ence which  I  made  to  one  of  his  statements  on  the 
31st  page  of  my  Review.  The  criticisms  here  pre- 
sented are  worthy  of  note,  and  I  would  ask  the  read- 
er's particular  attention  to 

PRESIDENT   BEECHEr's  LETTER. 

The  occasion  of  this  letter,  addressed  to  Rev.  Mr. 
Towne,  was  an  aUusion  which  I  made  to  the  follow- 
ing remark  of  Pres.  Beecher,  on  the  Jewish  ritual : 
"  Nor  is  the  washing  of  clothes,  so  often  spoken  of, 
enjoined  by  a  word  denoting  immersion."  Against 
this  statement,  I  quoted  a  law  of  purification  recorded 
in  Numbers  31 :  23,  —  '  and  all  that  abideth  not  the 
fire,  ye  shall  make  go  through  the  water? 

In  regard  to  this  law,  President  Beecher  says,  '4t 
is  not  a  specific  command  to  wash  clothes  at  all,  but 
a  general  command  to  cause  that  to  pass  through  the 
water  which  will  not  stand  the  fire."  In  reply  to 
this  suggestion,  I  would  respectfully  ask,  if  the  Avord 
raiment  does  not  mean  clothes  7  If  it  does  not,  then 
Dr.  Beecher's  remark  is  just :  if  otherwise,  then  it  is 
erroneous,  because  in  the  context  >«/me?i^,  is  specified 
as  one  of  _lhe  articles  to  be  purified  by  water.  In 
verse  20th,  it  is  said,  '  purify  all  your  raiment,  and 
all  that  is  made  of  skins,  and  all  work  of  goats'  hair, 
and  all  things  made  of  wood !'  Now  if  raiment  de- 
notes clothes,  and  raiment  is  specified  as  an  article 
to  go  through  the  water,  then  this  is  a  specific  com- 
mand to  wash  clothes. 


119 

Dr.  Beecher  observes,  moreover,  that  ''  the  passage 
refers  to  the  purification  of  spoils  taken  from  an 
enemy.  It  does  not  relate  to  the  '  washing  of  the 
olothes  so  often  spoken  of  This  was  the  washing 
of  the  person's  own  clothes."  I  did  not  think,  that 
he  would  fix  on  a  distinction  like  this  ;  for  what  rea- 
son in  the  world  can  we  have  to  imagine  that  their 
mode  of  washing  clothes  taken  from  an  enemy,  would 
differ  from  their  usual  mode  of  washing  their  own 
clothes  when  unclean  ?  Did  any  Jew  ever  suppose, 
that  his  own  clothes  could  be  washed  or  purified  by 
sprinkling  ? 

Again  ;  Dr.  Beecher  says,  that  if  this  passage  did 
contain  the  command  which  he  refers  to,  "  it  con- 
tains no  word  denoting  immersion."  To  this  I  an- 
swer, it  contains  a  phrase  which  involves  necessarily 
the  idea  of  immersion,  and  is  adapted  to  explain 
\vhat  Moses  meant,  and  what  the  Jews  understood 
to  be  the  proper  way  of  washing  clothes. 

Again,  Dr.  Beecher  says,  "  The  command  to  which 
T  did  refer,  occurs  in  the  very  next  verse,  and  fully 
sustains  my  assertion." — ''  I  spoke  of  a  word  in  Avhich 
an  oft-repeated  injunction  is  given,  and  mentioned 
the  identical  word,  viz.  Dsa,  and  affirmed  that  it  did 
not  denote  immersion,"  and  will  Mr.  Hague  venture 
to  deny  the  truth  of  my  assertion  concerning  it  7" 
(p.  114 — 115.)  In  answer  to  this,  I  would  ask,  in 
return,  does  not  President  Beecher  know  that  the 
Hebrew  word  in  question  truly  and  properly  denotes, 
to  tread  or  press  doxon  somethings  namely  clothes,  in 
a  trough  or  other  vessel  7  And  -if  water  was  used  for 
washing,  that  the  act  of  treading  or  pressing  down 
the  clothes  in  the  vessel  involved  their  immersion,  of 
course  7  Can  clothes  be  trodden  down  in  a  vessel  of 
water,  and  not  be  immersed?  Now,  that  this  is  the 
TQdl  force  of  the  word,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  It  is 
directly  asserted  by  G^senius,  in  his  lexicon ;  and,  if 
the  reader  would  fain  be  satisfied,  I  would  ask  him 
to  turn  to  the  word  in  Dr.  Robinson's  edition  of  that 


120 

work.  Let  not  Dr.  Beecher  say,  then,  that  it  is  I 
who  venture  to  deny  his  statement ;  I  only  assert 
that  it  is  denied  by  the  best  Hebraists  in  the  world. 
The  question,  whether  his  assertion  of  the  native'' 
force  of  the  word  be  right  or  wrong,  turns  on  the 
answer  to  another,  namely,  whether,  if  clothes  are 
trodden  down  in  a  vessel  of  water,  it  necessarily 
follows  that  they  are  immersed,  or  not  1 

While  President  Beecher's  pen  is  in  his  hand,  he 
takes  the  opportunity  to  present  Mr.  Towne  with 
several  ''authorities  and  facts,"  to  show  -'that  those 
to  whom  the  Greek  was  vernacular,  did  regard 
baptizo  as  signifying  to  purify,  irrespective  of  mode." 
The  first  passage  is  from  Clement  of  Alexandria 
(Strom,,  Book  lY).  In  this,  that  learned  writer 
asserts  two  things,  an  opinion  and  a  fact.  (1.)  The 
opinion  is,  that  a  resemblance  of  hajptistn  proceeded 
from  Moses  to  the  Greek  poets.  "  He  illustrates  it 
by  two  instances:  Penelope  washed  herself,  and  put 
on  clean  apparel,  and  went  to  her  devotions.  Te- 
lemachus  ivashed  his  hands  in  the  ocean,  and  prayed 
to  Minerva."  For  the  first  case  of  washmg,  Homer 
uses  the  word  udraino ;  for  the  second  case,  nipto. 
President  Beecher's  question  is,  whether  these  wash- 
ings, which  were  a  resemblance  of  Mosaic  baptisms, 
are  expressed  by  words  denoting  immersion.  His 
first  question  is  this:  "Is  not  udraino  a  generic 
word,  to  denote  washing  or  purification  ?  Is  it  not 
as  generic  as  katharizol^''  1  reply,  it  is  not  as  ge- 
neric as  katharizo^  to  denote  purification,  for  this 
latter  applies  to  purification  by  fire  or  by  expiation, 
as  well  as  by  water.  The  former  word  is  confined 
to  water.  It  means  wetting  and  washing,  and  is 
often  applied  to  the  act  of  bathing.  (See  Donnegan's 
Lexicon.)  We  know  that  bathing  was  among  the 
sacred  rites  of  the  Greeks,  and  this  fact  would  inter- 
pret to  them  the  idea  of  Homer  as  to  the  case  of 
Penelope.  An  act  of  bathing  among  the  Greeks 
would  resemble  an  act  of  bathing  among  the  He- 


121 

brews,  sufficiently  to  suggest  to  Clement  the  thought, 
that  the  one  people  derived  the  rite  from  the  other. 

So  in  regard  to  washing  hands.  President  Beech- 
er  asks,  "Dare  any  one  say  that  nipto  denotes 
immersion?  Is  washing  of  the  hands  immersion?" 
I  answer,  the  hands  may  be  washed  without  their 
immersion;  but  the  declaration  of  Homer  is,  "  Te- 
lemachus  washed  his  hands  m  the  ocean.''''  That 
was  undoubtedly  immersion.  What  Clement  de- 
clares is  just  this ;  that  such  was  the  resemblance 
between  the  Jewish  and  the  Grecian  rites,  that  the 
latter  might  have  been  taken  from  the  former.  Such 
was  his  opinion. 

(2.)  The  FACT  which  Clement  states,  is,  that  "  this 
was  the  custom  of  the  Jews,  that  they  should  be 
often  baptized" — how?  in  what  circumstances? 
"  Upon  their  couches,"  5ays  President  Beecher.  I 
have  the  best  authority  in  the  world,  for  saying  that 
Clement  asserted  no  such  thing.  This  last  phrase  is 
a  wrong  translation.  His  expression  is,  they  were 
baptized, — stti  xoni]  ("post  concubitum")  ;  that  is, 
afte?^  the  use  of  the  bed.  The  word  in  Clement  is  the 
same  as  that  used  by  Paul  in  Romans,  where  it  is 
rendered  "ch  amber  in  g."=^  The  best  edition  of  Clem- 
ent's works,  is  that  of  Archbishop  Potter,  published 
in  England  in  the  year  1715,  and  re-published  at 
Venice  in  1757,  under  the  sanction  of  the  Doge  and 
several  Italian  scholars.  The  latter  edition  is  the  one 
which  I  have  consulted,— an  edition  more  highly 
respected  in  Europe  for  the  sake  of  reference,  than 
any  other.  The  learned  editor  has  a  note  on  this 
very  phrase,  em,  xomj  •  and  referring  to  a  certain 
writer,  who  had  rendered  it  in  Latin  by  the  words, 
"  in  lecto," — on  the  couch, — pronounces  it  to  be  a 
corrupt  translation.! 

*Rom.  13:  13. 

tThe  note  ia  as  follows:  CTTt  XOtTJy— Hoc  est  post  concubitum.  Herretus 
perperam  vertit,  in  lecto. 

11 


122 

It  is  probable  that  this  Latin  version  was  the 
source  of  President  Beecher's  mistake.  As  to  its 
merits.  Archbishop  Potter  says,  "  The  translation  of 
Hervetus,  which  is  the  one  most  used  by  learned 
men,  although  often  altered  for  the  better,  neverthe- 
less in  many  things,  even  yet,  is  so  foreign  from  the 
author's  meaning,  in  others  so  lame  and  imperfect, 
in  very  many  cases  so  ambiguous  and  obscure,  that 
often  in  Clement's  own  work,  there  is  nothing  more 
wanting  than  Clement  himself;  and  not  unfrequently 
the  Latin  needs  to  be  explained  by  the  Greek,  more 
than  the  Greek  by  the  Latin.  And,  finally,  he  who 
should  undertake  to  correct  this  as  much  as  the  case 
requires,  would  evidently  be  cleaning  an  Augean 
stable." 

What  now  becomes  of  President  Beecher's  asser- 
tion, that,  according  to  Clement,  the  Jews  were  bap- 
tized on  their  beds  1  It  is  seen  to  be  founded  on  an 
error.  The  best  editions  of  Clement,  published  in 
Europe  a  century  ago,  would  have  furnished  him 
the  means  of  avoiding  it,  if  he  had  carefully  con- 
sulted them.  But  it  is  evident  that  he  has  been 
hasty.  If  this  is  a  specimen  of  his  way  of  reading 
the  Greek  fathers,  his  citations  from  them  will  not 
possess  a  very  high  authority. 

The  letter  before  us  presents  two  instances  of  the 
use  of  bapto,  which  are  said  to  be  "  quite  decisive  " 
against  the  idea  of  immersion.  The  first  is  from  the 
Argonautica  of  Apollonius  Rhodius  (Book  4,  lines 
156,  157),  where,  it  is  said,  ''occurs  the  most  re- 
markable case  of  immersion  or  dipping  on  record,  if 
it  be  true  that  bapfo  always  means  to  dip."  Others, 
however,  who  are  well  acquainted  with  the  work 
just  mentioned,  and  who  have  no  theological  theory 
to  support,  have  found  nothing  remarkable  in  this 
case  of  dipping.  It  was  such  a  dipping  as  occurs 
every  day.  It  was  not,  as  President  Beecher  thinks, 
the  baptism  of  a  serpent.  The  facts  are  these.  A 
HUGE  SERPENT  lises  up  before  Medea  and  Jason,  — 


123 

"  with  uplifted  head  seeking  to  devour  them.  Medea 
then  resorts  to  a  soporific  mixture  in  a  cup  or  goblet, 
and,  in  the  words  of  the  poet," 

/?'  de  liitv  agxevdoio  veov  iSTfisoit,  Oalloi 
Banjovg   ex.  itvxea)vog  axriQuiu  cpag/itux'  aoidaig 
^FaiP6  %ax  OifdalfJLov. 

That  is  ('-if  bapto  -means  dip"),  she,  with  a  newly- 
cut  juniper  bough,  dipping  out  of  the  cup  the  strong 
poisons,  sprinkled  them,  with  songs,  upon  his  eyes. 
Now  in  this  case,  the  dipping  was  not  '  remarkable.' 
It  is  natural  enough  to  dip  a  bough  in  a  liquid,  in 
order  to  sprinkle  the  liquid.  Just  as  in  Numbers  19  : 
18,  Moses  commands  that  one  should  "  dip  hyssop 
in  the  water,  and  sprinkle  it  upon  the  tent."  The 
difference  between  one  and  the  other  act,  is  distinctly 
marked  in  both  cases.  Apollonius  does  not  say  that 
the  serpent  tvas  baptized  at  all;  but  that  the  leafy 
rod  of  juniper  was  dipped,  and  with  it,  the  serpent 
was  sprinkled  about  the  eyes. 

That  my  statement  of  the  meaning  of  the  poet  in 
this  passage  is  correct,  may  be  more  evident  to  the 
reader,  by  looking  at  the  following  translation  of  it, 
from  a  celebrated  work.  It  was  made  by  Fawkes, 
who  published  translations  of  Apollonius,  Sappho, 
Bion,  Moschus,  and  other  Greek  poets.  It  may  be 
found  in  Anderson's  British  Poets.     It  runs  thus : 

A  branch  of  juniper  the  maid  applies, 
Steeped  in  a  baneful  potion,  to  his  eyes; 
Its  odors  strong  the  branch  diffused  around. 
And  sunk  the  enormous  beast  in  sleep  profound. 

Lond.  Edit.,  1795. 

Certainly,  the  translator  saw  both  dipping  and  sprink- 
ling here :  the  first,  of  the  bough,  the  second,  of  the 
beast. 

But  President  Beecher  remarks,  "  the  Greek  scho- 
liast sees  no  immersion  here."  On  what  ground  does 
the  President  say  this  1  Simply  because  the  Greek 
scholiast  declares  that  "  in  these  and  the  following 


124 

words  the  poet  says,  that  Medea,  sprinklmg  the  poi- 
son with  the  juniper  branch,  put  the  dragon  to  sleep.' 
Very  true.  That  is  evident  enough.  But  does  the 
schoUast  say,  that  Medea  did  not  dip  the  bough  7 
Not  at  all.  Unfortunately  for  Pres.  Beecher's  ver- 
sion of  the  passage,  he  has  thrown  in  the  remark, 
that  "  the  editor  illustrates  it  by  a  reference  to  the 
passage  in  Virgil,  in  which  the  god  of  sleep  shakes  a 
bough,  moistened  with  Lethean  water,  over  the  tem- 
ples of  Palinurus,  aud  puts  him  to  sleep."  But  did 
it  not  occur  to  our  author,  that  Virgil  speaks  of  that 
bough  as  having  been  soaked  in  the  river  Styx, — 
"  vique  Stygia  soporatam  7"^  The  reader  may  see 
how  distinctly  this  is  expressed  by  the  translation  of 
Dr.  Trapp,  professor  of  poetry  at  Oxford  : — 

Wet  with  Lethean  dew,  and  steeped  in  Styx. 

In  our  school-i)oy  days  we  read  the  passage  over 
and  over  again,  but  never  imagined  that  a  bongh 
had  the  power  of  scattering  drops  of  Stygian  water, 
without  having  first  been  put  into  it. 

I  am  much  obliged  to  Pres.  Beecher  for  alluding 
to  this  passage  in  Virgil,  it  is  such  a  capital  example, 
so  exactly  to  the  point.  The  bough  was  dipped,  and 
then  the  water  was  sprinkled  with  it.  As  Potter 
observes  in  his  Grecian  Antiquities,  it  was  customary 
with  the  Greeks  to  dip  a  torch  in  sacred  water,  and 
then  sprinkle  surrounding  objects.  For  a  torch, 
they  often  substituted  a  bough. f  This  is  just  what 
was  done  by  Medea.  According  to  Pliny,  a  juniper 
bough  was  deemed  particularly  etfectual  against  ser- 
pents.J  We  see,  at  a  glance,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  that  the  bough  must  have  been  dipped  in  the 
poisonous  drugs,  in  order  to  smear  the  serpent's  eyes. 
The  version  in  some  sense  speaks  for  itself  The 
mention  of  the  dipping  of  the  leafy  rod,  was  neces- 

*  ^neid,  v.  854.  t  Potter's  Gr.  Ant.,  lib.  ii,  chap.  4. 

t  Pliny,  lib.  xxiv,  c.  8. 


125 

sary  to  a  complete  description  of  the  act  of  Medea. 
Without  this,  an  important  circumstance  would  have 
been  omitted.  With  this,  every  thing  is  natural  and 
in  its  place.  And  with  this,  the  passage  presents  no 
difficulty  at  all.  It  is  only  necessary  to  look  at  it 
closely  in  its  connection,  in  order  to  be  convinced. 
Time  was,  when  in  the  court  of  Pharaoh,  Aaron 
threw  down  a  rod  upon  the  ground,  and  it  became  a 
serpent;  but  in  this  case  as  put  by  Pres.  Beecher, 
when  we  set  clearly  in  the  light  the  subject  of  Me- 
dea's baptism,  behold  another  wonder; — the  serpent 
becomes  a  rod ! 

A  SECOND  Example.  To  show  that  bapto  has  lost  its 
primary  meaning  of  immersion,  another  passage  is 
cited  from  Lucien.  The  writer  does  not  tell  where 
his  quotation  occurs ;  but  the  reader  may  find  it  in 
the  dialogue  between  Lycinus  and  the  Cynic.  We 
are  told  by  Pres.  Beecher,  that  \i  bapto  means  to  dip, 
the  sentence  is,  "  the  flesh  of  the  sllell-fish  (called 
noQcpvga)  can  not  only  be  eaten,  but  can  also  dip  or 
immerse."  He  adds,  "  dip  or  immerse  what?  And 
how  can  flesh  dip  or  immerse  any  thing?"  To  this 
1  answer,  that  Lucien  himself  has  told  how,  in  the 
preceding  sentence,  which  our  author  has  omit- 
ted to  notice.  Lucien  has  told  precisely  what  he 
means,  and  his  meaning  is  entirely  consonant  with 
the  idea  of  immersion.  Look  at  the  preceding  sen- 
tence. The  Cynic  asks  Lycinus,  if  those  who  use 
the  shell-fish  not  only  for  food,  but  for  dyeing,  by 
m,annfacturing  the  flesh  into  dye-stuff  liquids ^^  do 
not  act  contrary  to  nature  ?  Lycinus  answers.  No : 
that  nature  had  rendered  the  flesh  of  the  fish  fit  not 
only  to  be  eaten,  but  also  {bapteiii)  to  dye.  Now, 
although  Lucien  has  just  explained  the  manner  of 
this  dyeing,  that  it  is  done  by  making  a  dye-stuff 
liquid  out  of  the  fleshy  Pres.  Beecher  overlooks  this 

♦  Ba(p(xg  fiTjxrjvojjuevoi.      See  Donnegan's  Lex.  on  Sa(p<xg, 
11^ 


126 

as  if  it  were  quite  irrelevant.  Is  it  proper  to  take  a 
fragment  of  a  conversation,  which  expresses  only  a 
part  of  an  idea,  and  build  an  argument  upon  it,  as  if 
it  contained  the  whole  I  If  Lucien  tells  us  that  the 
dyeing  was  performed  by  manufacturing  the  flesh 
into  a  liquid,  then  we  see  how  in  this  case  the  word 
hapto  may  denote  dyeing  by  dipping. 

Although  I  have  spoken  of  the  difference  between 
hapto  and  baptizo,  and  of  the  reason  why  the  former 
is  comparatively  an  unimportant  word  in  this  dis- 
cussion, yet  I  am  not  willing  to  see  even  this  word 
seized  by  force,  and  pressed,  contrary  to  its  nature, 
into  the  service  of  a  cause  which  it  disowns.  Its 
primary  meaning,  to  dip,  still  lives  ;  and  while  it 
lives,  will  modify  the  applications  of  the  word. 
To  denote  the  act  of  dyeing  in  other  ways,  other 
words  are  used,  although  by  a  rhetorical  figure,  this 
may  be  employed  to  denote  simply  a  certain  effect, 
or  the  appearance  of  a  thing  when  it  looks  as  if  it 
had  been  dipped.  Thus,  the  ancients  called  a  certain 
gem  baptes :  why  ?  It  had  not  been  colored  by  art, 
^it  had  never  been  affected  by  sprinkling,  pouring,  or 
dipping;  it  retained  its  natural  hue,  but  it  was  called 
baptes,  because  it  appeared  as  if  it  had  been  dipped. 
So  in  regard  to  the  priests  at  Athens  called  Baptai, 
of  whom  our  authors  speak ;  they  used  paint  in  a 
way  which  suggested  the  same  idea.  On  that  pas- 
sage in  the  Old  Testament  where  we  are  told  that 
Jezebel  '  painted  her  face,'  Bishop  Patrick  remarks, 
that  the  Hebrew  expression  is,  "she  put  her  eyes  in 
paint."  The  appearance  of  the  eye  was  here  referred 
to;  for  the  custom  of  dipping  a  bodkin  or  silver  wire 
in  stibium,  a  dye-stuff,  and  moving  it  under  the  eye- 
lid, caused  the  ball  of  the  eye  to  look  as  if  it  had 
been  put  into  paint.  The  Baptai  at  Athens,  however, 
were  called  by  that  name  not  merely  from  the  use  of 
paint,  but  because  in  their  initiating  rites  they  were 
immersed  in  warm  water.  (On  this  see  Stephanus's 
Latin  Thesaurus.) 


127 

In  regard  to  lexicons,  President  Beecber  has  made 
some  very  singular  remarks.  He  says  that  he  has 
examined  several  made  by  Greek  writers,  with 
definitions  in  Greek,  and  gives  us  a  specimen  of 
what  he  calls  a  definition  from  one  of  them.  He 
says,  Zonaras  expressly  defines  baptism  to  be  "  for- 
giveness of  sins  by  water  and  the  Spirit !  "  This  is 
no  definition  of  the  word  at  all.  It  is  a  theological 
notion,  annexed  to  the  word  by  a  certain  class  of 
Christians.  It  is  amazing  that  such  a  sentiment  as 
this  should  be  laid  before  us,  as  having  any  thing  to 
do  with  a  definition  of  the  word  baptize.  Among  the 
ancients  of  different  ages,  baptism  had  various  names 
of  dignity,  according  to  prevailing  notions.  They 
are  enumerated  in  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  as 
well  as  in  other  works.  Baptism  was  called  paliyige- 
nesia,  or  laver  of  regeneration ;  it  was  called  life^ 
salvation,  the  seal  of  God,  the  seal  of  faith,  mystery^ 
sacrament,  the  gift  of  the  Lord,  consecration,  co?istim- 
mation,  initiation,  and  viaticum  from  its  being  ad- 
ministered to  departing  persons.  It  was  called,  too, 
the  sac?rime?it  of  faith,  the  great  circumcision,  and 
purification,  which  last  is  the  favorite  name  with 
President  Beecher.  But  none  of  these  names  contain 
a  definition  of  the  word.  Each  one,  in  fact,  is  an 
eulogy  on  the  ordinance.  It  would  be  as  easy  to 
show  from  "ecclesiastical  usage,"  that  baptism 
means  "regeneration,"  or  "salvation,"  as  that  it 
means  purification.  In  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  it 
is  often  interchanged  with  regeneration  ;  the  one  is 
substituted  for  the  other.  If  President  Beecher  can 
maintain  his  position  in  regard  to  purification,  more 
strongly  still  can  the  Papist  maintain  his  in  regard 
to  baptismcd  regeneration.  The  arguments  of  either 
one  are  as  good  as  those  of  the  other.  They  are 
intimately  connected ;  and  he  who  takes  one,  will  be 
logically  and  morally  bound  to  take  both. 

In  closing  his  letter,  President  Beecher  alludes  to 
the  assertion  which  I  made,  that  on  this  question, 


128 

the  Baptists  have  the  learning  of  modern  Europe  on 
their  side.  He  says,  that  even  if  he  admitted  the 
truth  of  this  claim,  he  would  reply,  "Before  their 
TRIBUNAL  I  REFUSE  TO  STAND."  Tliis  Sentence  deserves 
to  be  remembered.  Even  if  President  Beecher  were 
forced  to  own  that  all  the  learning  of  modern  Europe 
is  against  him,  although  it  be  on  a  question  which 
turns  on  the  meaning  of  a  word,  still  would  he  not 
relinquish  his  ground.  The  ground  which  he  occu- 
pies is  certainly  very  high,  if  all  the  learning  of 
modern  Europe  cannot  reach  it. 

But  to  whom  does  he  appeal  ?  At  whose  judg- 
ment-seat will  he  stand?  He  appeals  to  the  Greek 
fathers, — the  men  who  wrote  Greek,  to  whom  the 
language  was  vernacular.  But  the  modern  Greeks 
read  their  books  as  easily  as  we  read  English,  and 
with  one  voice,  declare  that  the  fathers  understood 
the  word  baptize  to  mean  immerse.  Before  their 
tribunal.  Prof.  Stuart  has  stood;  and  what  verdict 
did  he  bring  away?  He  says,  speaking  of  immer- 
sion, that  the  Greek  fathers,  and  the  Latin  ones  who 
were  familiar  with  the  Greek,  understood  this  to  be 
the  meanbig,  the  usual  import  of  baptlzo,  '' loould 
hardly  see^n  capable  of  deniaV^  ^  Yet,  after  this, 
their  decision,  announced  by  the  more  aged  profes- 
sor, we  behold  President  Beecher,  a  younger  man, 
going  into  their  court,  and,  as  if  they  had  never  said 
a  word,  appealing  to  them  with  the  question,  Does 
not  baptize  mean  to  purify?  We  are  well  aware, 
that  some  of  the  most  learned  and  judicious  men  of 
President  Beecher's  denomination  smile  kindly  at  his 
generous  enthusiasm  in  defence  of  their  cause,  and 
frankly  aver  that  he  cannot  succeed  in  sustaining  his 
peculiar  theory. 

Having  thus  noticed  the  various  statements  of  the 
letter,  the  reader  will  observe  my  entire 

*  Biblical  Repository,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  362. 


129 


In  regard  to  the  letter,  they  say,  ''the  examples 
cited  are  decisive.  We  call  the  attention  of  Mr. 
Hague  to  them  particularly."  I  have  bestowed  the 
attention  which  they  demanded.  And  now  1  call  on 
them  to  say,  whether  they  will  admit  that  their 
friend,  on  whom  they  called  for  aid,  has  not  correctly 
represented  the  meaning  of  Clement  in  regard  to  the 
Jews  being  often  baptized  on  their  beds,  or  whether 
they  will  assert  that  Archbishop  Potter,  the  author 
of  the  Greek  Archaeology,  and  the  editor  of  Clement's 
works,  together  with  those  Italian  scholars  who  re- 
published his  edition  of  Clement  in  Venice,  were 
quite  unable  to  translate  the  sentence,  and,  of  course, 
quite  unfortunate  in  not  having  been  able  to  derive 
some  light  from  Illinois  ?  I  have  quoted  a  note  of 
that  learned  editor,  containing  a  positive  denial  that 
the  sentence  in  Clement  can  have  such  a  sense  as 
President  Beecher  attributes  to  it.  Again,  will  they 
continue  to  insist  that  the  poet  ApoUonius  declares 
that  Medea  baptized  the  huge  serpent  ;  or  will  they 
admit  the  version  which  says  she  dipped  the  bough, 
and  sprinkled  the  dragon  with  it ;  a  version  which 
is  sustained  by  the  highest  authorities,  which  an 
unlearned  reader  can  see  is  by  far  the  most  natural, 
and  which  contains  internal  evidence  of  being  true? 
We  shall  see  how  they  will  pass  this  trial  of  their 
candor. 

In  justice  to  President  Beecher,  however,  it  ought 
to  be  said,  that  he  is  more  clear  in  the  statement  of 
his  principles,  and  more  consistent  in  his  reasonings, 
than  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne.  They  assert  that 
the  word  baptize  means  to  sprinkle.  He  denies  that 
it  denotes  any  specific  act.  They  take  first  one 
meaning,  and  then  another,  just  as  it  suits  them. 
He  denies  that  this  can  be  properly  done.  He  says 
(Bib.  Repos.,  2d  series,  p.  42,  Jan.,  1840),  ''If  we 
adopt  the  generic  meaning,  purify  or  cleanse,  we 


130 

must  adhere  to  it  at  all  times,  when  speaking  of  the 
rite.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  adopt  a  specific 
meaning,  as  immerse,  or  sprinkle,  we  must  adhere 
to  it  in  the  same  way,  and  not  pass  from  the  generic 
to  the  specific,  or  from  the  specific  to  the  generic, 
according  to  the  exigencies,  on  the  ground  that  the 
word  baptizo  may,  in  the  whole  circuit  of  its  use, 
mean  sometimes  one  thing  and  sometimes  another. 
Nor  must  we  adopt  both  ;  for  however  numerous  the 
possible  meanings  of  a  word  may  be  in  its  various 
usages,  it  has  in  each  particular  case  but  one  mean- 
ing, and  in  all  similar  cases  its  meaning  is  the  same. 
Hence,  the  word  baptizo,  as  applied  to  a  given  rite, 
has  not  two  or  many  meanings,  but  one,  and  to  that 
one,  we  should  in  all  cases  adhere." 

We  deem  these  principles  to  be  just.  And  if  they 
are,  they  cut  up  by  the  roots  the  doctrines  of  Messrs. 
Cooke  and  Towne,  touching  the  various  meanings  of 
the  word.  And  as  to  President  Beecher  himself,  if 
he  fails  to  prove  that  the  word  means  simply  and 
properly  to  purify,  they  leave  him  no  ground  oii 
which  fo  stand  for  the  defence  of  different  modes  of 
baptism. 

In  regard  to  President  Beecher' s  attempt  to  show 
that  the  word  baptize  means  to  purify,  I  have  said, 
that  by  the  same  process  the  Catholics  might  prove 
that  it  means  to  regenerate ;  and  in  my  former  reply 
to  the  reasonings  of  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne,  p.  19, 
I  had  occasion  to  notice  the 

SIMILARITY    OF    THE   ARGUMENTS     FOR    UNIVERSALISM    AND 
SPRINKLING. 

1  would  again  refer  the  reader  to  that  paragraph. 
As  to  the  word  aioiiion,  eternal,  on  which  the  discus- 
sion with  Universalists  generally  turns,  they  speak 
of  its  great  variety  of  meanings,  and  of  its  uncertain- 
ty. Just  so  my  reviewers  speak  of  the  word  baptizo. 
On  page  122  of  the  Rejoinder,  they  ask  if  I  have 
"  seen  no  successful  arguments  against  Universalists 


131 

by  Pedobaptist  writers?"  I  answer  that  I  have; 
but  not  exactly  on  the  philological  principles  of  our 
authors.  Did  Prof.  Stuart,  in  his  discussion  of  that 
subject,  admit  that  eternal  was  not  the  native  and 
proper  meaning  of  aionios  7  Or,  admitting  that  it 
had  been,  did  he  allow  that  this  meaning  had  ever 
been  "  merged  and  lost? "  Not  at  all.  He  declares 
that  when  aionios  is  used  to  denote  something  of 
limited  duration,  it  is  used  catachrestically.  And 
with  rhetoricians,  what  is  a  catachresis  7  It  is  de^ 
fined,  "  a  harsh  trope,  by  which  a  word  is  forced  into 
an  application  contrary  to  its  jproper  meaning."  An 
instance  of  this  is  found,  in  applying  the  word  ever- 
lasti7ig  to  any  thing  temporary,  as  in  the  conversa- 
tional phrase,  everlasting  talker^  everlasting  plague^ 
&c.  Does  Prof  Stuart  allow  the  Universalists  to  get 
off  by  saying  that  this  distinction  is  of  no  importance, 
and  that  ''other  meanings  are  other  meanings,  como 
from  what  source  they  may  ?  "  No.  He  holds  theni 
to  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word,  as  well  when  it 
is  applied  to  future  misery,  as  to  future  happiness. 
The  word  Gehenna,  too,  was  primarily  the  name  of 
a  place  in  Judea,  known  as  a  scene  of  gloom  and 
wretchedness.  It  was  transferred^  as  a  proper  name, 
to  a  place  of  gloom  and  wretchedness  in  the  invisi- 
ble world ;  but  its  primary  meaning  modifies  and 
limits  its  application,  or  else  it  might  be  given  as  a 
proper  name  to  heaven  as  well  as  to  hell, — to  a  scene 
of  happiness  as  well  as  of  misery.  Let  it  be  admitted, 
that  the  primary  meanings  of  these  words  have  been 
*' merged  and  lost,"  and  their  real  sense  may  be 
easily  hidden  in  a  mist  of  uncertainty. 

BAPTISM    OF    BEDS. 

It  is  said  by  President  Beecher,  in  his  letter,  p.  117, 
''Our  credulity  has  been  sorely  taxed  to  believe  that 
couches  were  habitually  immersed  by  the  Jews." 
Yet  it  is  asserted  in  Mark  7:  4,  that  the  Pharisees 
baptized  cups,  pots,  brazen  vessels,   and  couches. 


132 

(This  last  word  is  rendered  tables^  in  our  version.) 
Now,  why  should  it  be  deemed  incredible,  that  they 
immersed  these  things,  considering  the  superstitious 
character  of  the  men  ?  Did  not  our  Saviour  rebuke 
them  for  their  proneness  to  go  beyond  the  law  of 
observances?  Would  they  not  "strain  at  a  gnat 
and  swallow  a  camel?"  They  could  do  many 
things  which  would  seem  hard  to  others.  Our  au- 
thors speak  of  them  as  if  they  were  reasonable  men  ; 
but  Mark  represents  them  as  being  just  the  reverse. 
He  speaks  of  them  as  very  superstitious,  as  following 
tradition  instead  of  the  Bible  ;  but  when  he  gives  the 
facts  which  sustain  his  assertion,  shall  we  say,  they 
tax  our  credulity  ?  Why,  if  there  was  nothing  mar- 
vellous about  them,  they  would  never  have  been 
mentioned  for  such  a  purpose. 

In  my  Review,  I  quoted  from  the  celebrated  Rabbi 
Maimonides,  the  rule  which  required  them  to  im- 
merse their  couches.  This  is  proof.  My  reviewers 
do  not  attempt  to  invalidate  it.  There  stands  the 
rule,  which  requires  the  Jew  to  immerse  his  couch, 
"  part  by  part."  Why  do  they  not  meet  it  fairly  ? 
They  ought  to  disprove  it,  or  else  concede  the  argu- 
ment. 

I  referred  to  Calmet,  to  show  the  possibility  of  im- 
mersing couches,  but  my  reviewers  say,  they  can 
find  nothing  to  the  point.  I  had  in  my  mind  such 
expressions  as  these,  which  the  reader  may  find  in 
Calmet.  "  The  word  Bed,  is  in  many  cases  calcu- 
lated to  mislead  and  perplex  the  reader.  The  beds 
in  the  East  are  very  different  from  those  used  in 
this  part  of  the  world,  and  our  attention  to  this,  is 
indispensable  to  the  right  apprehension  of  several 
passages  of  Holy  Writ." — He  adds,  that  frequently 
the  bed  spoken  of  in  the  Bible,  is  nothing  more  than 
"a  cotton  quilt  folded  double."  He  quotes  from 
Psalms  the  sentence,  ''I  make  my  bed  to  swim,  and 
water  my  couch  with  tears,"  to  show,  that  a  Jewish 
couch  might  be  so  hard  that  tears  wotild  "run  over 
it."     It  occurred  to  me,  that  these  facts  might  tend  to 


1§*3 

remove  any  difficulties  which  might  arise  from  one's 
associating  the  term  bed  with  such  structures  as  bear 
that  name  amongst  us.  But  as  our  authors  cannot 
see  how  they  bear  upon  the  point,  I  must  commend 
them  to  the  judgment  of  the  candid  reader.  Let 
him  remember  that  my  reviewers  concede,  that  bap- 
tize often  means  immerse ;  and  as  to  its  meaning  in 
this  passage,  let  him  connect  with  it  the  fact  that 
these  articles  were  immersed.  I  ask  again,  which 
are  the  clearer  lights ;  such  authorities  as  these,  or 
the  assertions  of  my  reviewers. 

John's  baptism. 
In  their  "  Hints,"  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne  have 
expressed  their  belief,  that  for  John  to  have  immersed 
all  those  to  whom  he  administered  baptism,  would 
have  been  an  impossibility,  because  it  would  have 
required  more  time  and  strength  than  he  possessed. 
They  suppose  that  John  baptized  half  a  million. 
This  calculation  I  treated  as  a  mere  guess.  They 
seem  to  think  it  unreasonable,  that  I  should  not  re- 
gard it  as  a  thing  proved.  They  found  it  upon  the 
expression,  "then  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem,  and 
all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan, 
and  were  baptized  of  him."  That  people  crowded 
to  him  from  all  these  parts,  we  readily  admit ;  but  it 
can  be  easily  shown,  that  John  did  not  baptize 
even  a  majority  of  the  converts.  For,  1st,  we 
are  expressly  told,  that  Jesus  "made  and  baptized 
MORE  DISCIPLES  THAN  JoHN  ;"^  and,  2dly,  we  know 
that  the  great  proportion  of  the  higher  classes  were 
baptized  by  neither.  The  Pharisees  and  lawyers 
rejected  John,!  and  of  Jesus  it  was  asked  long  after- 
ward, "  Have  any  of  the  rulers  or  Pharisees  believed 
on  him?"  The  expression  touching  Jerusalem  going 
out  to  the  wilderness,  is  a  general  one,  denoting 
many  from  the  various  classes  of  society.  Some 
went  merely  to  see ;  others  who  asked  for  baptism 
were  denied.f    Moreover,  the  public'  ministry  of  Je- 

*  John  4:1.  t  Luke  7:  30.  1  Malt.  3:7. 

12 


134 

sus  was  twice  as  long  as  that  of  John ;  and  if,  in  the 
space  of  time  allotted  to  him,  John  baptized  half  a 
million^  and  Jesus  made  disciples  in  a  still  more  rajnd 
ratio,  then  at  the  time  of  Christ's  death  there  must 
have  been  not  far  from  three  millions  of  persons  who 
had  embraced  his  religion  in  that  little  land  of  Pales- 
tine. What  a  new  idea  is  this !  Surely,  it  could  not 
have  been  said  with  much  propriety,  "  Who  hath 
believed  our  report?"  Nor  could  the  church  have 
been  called  properly  "  a  little  flock."  Compared  with 
such  an  increase,  the  triumphs  of  the  apostles  could 
not  have  seemed  very  marvellous,  nor  the  descent  of 
the  promised  Spirit  so  very  marked  as  is  generally 
believed.  But  the  fact  is  clear  that  this  calculation 
is  a  very  hasty  assumption. 

Our  authors  speak  of  my  treating  their  remarks 
touching  the  phrase  "Much  water,"  in  John  3:  23, 
with  ridicule.  They  were  dissatisfied  with  our 
English  version,  and  said,  that  in  the  original  the 
phrase  is  nolla  ra  v(5«T«,  many  waters  —  denoting  little 
rivulets.  I  answered  this  by  saying  that  in  Rev.  14 : 
2,  the  same  phrase  is  used  to  designate  the  ocean. 
This  was  "no  sneer,"  but  an  argument.  I  still  deem 
it  a  sound  one.  I  see  no  reason  to  be  dissatisfied  with 
our  Enghsh  translation,  which  denotes  abundance  of 
water. 

BAPTISM    OF    CHRIST. 

The  learned  Dr.  Whitby  of  the  church  of  England, 
in  his  commentary  on  the  narration  of  Christ's  bap- 
tism in  Matt.  3,  speaks  of  the  decisive  voice  of  the 
Greeks  on  the  import  of  baptism,  quotes  the  Jewish 
rule  on  the  subject,  and  declares  that  a  doubt  whether 
John  immersed  Jesus,  must  arise  from  ignorance. 
As  Whitby  was  a  Pedobaptist,  one  of  the  most  emi- 
nent of  his  age  for  biblical  knowledge,  and  quoted  by 
succeeding  writers  on  almost  every  theological  topic, 
I  may  be  allowed  to  ask  for  his  plain  statement  a 
candid  consideration.  The  copy  of  his  work  which 
I  have  used,  belongs  to  the  Boston  Athenaeum,  and 
is  in  two  quarto  volumes. 


135 

In  their  ''  Hints,"  our  authors  stated  that  Christ 
was  baptized  as  a  priest, — that  his  baptism  was  his 
legal  initiation  into  the  office.  In  answer  to  this,  I 
said,  that  the  requisitions  of  the  Mosaic  law  could 
not  apply  to  the  priesthood  of  Christ,  "  for  it  is  evi- 
dent "  (says  Paul,  Heb.  7:  14)  "that  our  Lord  sprang 
out  of  Juda ;  of  which  tribe  Moses  spake  nothing 
concerning  priesthood."  My  opponents  ask,  whether 
I  have  "  thus  penned  a  denial  of  the  priesthood  of 
Christ,"  and  speak  of  the  influence  of  "  German 
writers,"  in  a  case  where  there  was  no  occasion  to 
allude  to  them.  I  have  no  idea,  however,  that  they 
have  any  real  doubts  of  my  orthodoxy  on  this  point. 
The  question  is  asked  only  for  effect.  My  argument 
on  this  point  is  very  brief  I  will  just  state  it  and 
leave  it.  1.  The  rites  of  initiation  into  the  priest- 
hood were  enjoined  by  the  Mosaic  law  ;  2.  But  in 
the  tribe  to  which  our  Lord  belonged,  that  law  recog- 
nized no  priesthood.  3.  Therefore  Christ's  baptism 
could  not  have  been  a  legal  initiation  into  the  priest- 
hood. 

BAPTISM    OF    THE    THREE    THOUSAND. 

In  their  first  work,  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne  stated 
their  belief,  that  the  three  thousand  converts  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost  could  not  have  been  immersed  in 
Jerusalem,  for  the  want  of  water.  "The  brook  Ce- 
dron  was  dry,  and  no  suitable  place  could  be  found." 
On  page  30  of  my  Review,  I  expressed  my  astonish- 
ment that  they  should  speak  thus,  since  the  publica- 
tion of  Dr.  Robinson's  work  on  Palestine,  in  which 
the  vast  extent  of  reservoirs  and  -pools  is  amply  ex- 
hibited, and  where  it  is  stated  that  never,  even  in  a 
siege,  was  there  "  a  want  of  water  within  the  city." 
What  do  they  reply  to  this?  That  "  water  in  ivells 
might  answer  all  the  purposes  of  standing  a  siege, 
and  yet  not  be  very  convenient  for  immersing."  But 
let  it  be  observed.  Dr.  Robinson  does  not  say  that  the 
water  chiefly  was  in  icells^  but  just  the  contrary. 
Have   the  gentlemen,  even   yet,  not  looked  at  Dr. 


136 

Robinson's  statements  7  The  city  now  abounds  in 
relics  of  fountains,  cisterns,  pools,  baths,  reservoirs, 
basins,  and  conduits,  which  indicate  an  abundance 
of  water,  and  great  facilities  for  adapting  its  flow  or 
confinement  to  every  imaginable  purpose. 

In  connection  with  remarks  on  the  baptism  of  the 
three  thousand,  I  stated  that  Chrysostom  of  Constan- 
tinople, immersed  in  one  day,  3000  catechumens, 
young  persons  who  had  been  instructed  in  Christian- 
ity, and  that  in  doing  it  he  had  none  to  assist  him 
but  the  clergy  of  his  own  church.  The  gentlemen 
say,  that  1  give  them  "  7io  authority  for  so  i7icredible 
afacty  Here  then  is  the  authority, —  Chrysostom 
hiynself.  He  says,  that  "  the  emperor  was  affected 
at  the  sight  of  the  newly-baptized,  for  they  were 
about  three  thousand^  See  his  Ep.  ad  Innocent,  vol. 
iii,  p.  518.^ — Neander's  Life  of  Chrysostom,  vol.  ii,  p. 
225.  Could  we  have  better  authority  for  this  histor- 
ical fact  which  occurred  on  the  great  Sabbath,  April 
16th,  404.  That  these  were  immersed  there  can  be 
no  doubt,  for  Chrysostom  calls  baptism  a  "  plunging 
into  the  water  and  raising  out  of  it,"  and  is  quoted 
by  Prof.  Stuart  in  the  Biblical  Repository  (vol.  iii,  p. 
358),  as  expressing  his  idea  in  the  following  sen- 
tence :  "We  as  in  a  sepulchre,  immersing  our  heads 
in  water,  the  old  man  is  buried,  and,  sinking  down^ 
rlie  whole  is  concealed  at  once;  then,  as  we  emerge, 
the  new  man  again  rises."  (Chrysostom  in  cap.  iii, 
Johannis.)  Moreover,  Chrysostom,  in  the  case  be- 
fore us,  speaks  of  the  baptisteries  ;  (at  yoXvy^rjdgai ;) 
and  we  know  that  the  grand  baptistery  of  the  church 
of  St.  Sophia,  built  in  the  age  of  Constantine,  was  a 
spacious  and  splendid  work. 

Here,  then,  is  a  well  attested  fact,  that  3000  were 
immersed  in  one  day  at  one  place,  for  it  is  said,  that 
they  were  assembled  on  the  preceding  evening,  and 
were  ready,  waiting  the  approach  of  the  appointed 
day,  according  to  the  custom  of  those  times.     Here  is 

*  Tiiis  reference  is  to  the  edition  of  Chryaost.m,  published  at  Paris,  by  Mont- 
faucon. 


137 

a  DECISIVE  FACT ;  Ict  it  be  considered..  I  would  ask  my 
reviewers  if  Chrysostom  of  old,  and  Neander  of 
modern  times,  may  be  relied  on  as  good  historical 
authorities  ? 

BAPTISM    OF    THE    ETHIOPIAN. 

Our  authors  continue  to  insist  that  the  Ethiopian 
must  have  read  something  about  sprinkling  in  the 
prophet  Isaiah,  chap.  52,  although  there  is  no  reason 
to  doubt,  that  he  was  reading  the  Septuagint  version, 
from  which  Luke  draws  his  quotation,  and  in  which 
that  verb  is  rendered  astonish.  This  I  mentioned  in 
my  Review,  p.  32.  Without  protracting  debate  on 
this  point,  I  will  only  cite  a  remark  from  Dr.  Barnes's 
notes  on  Isaiah,  which  applies  to  the  case.  It  is  a 
comment  on  the  passage  in  question.  He  says,  "  It 
may  be  remarked,  that  whichever  of  the  above  senses 
is  assigned,  it  furnishes  no  argument  for  the  practice 
of  sprinkling  in  baptism.  It  refers  to  the  fact  of  his 
purifying  or  cleansing  the  nations,  and  not  to  the 
ordinance  of  Christian  baptism.  Nor  should  it  he 
used  as  an  argument  in  reference  to  the  mode  in 
which  that  should  be  administered.'''' 

BAPTISM  AND  THE  LORd's  SUPPER. 

The  question  is  sometimes  asked,  why  is  it  that 
the  Baptists  insist  so  strongly  on  the  primitive  mode 
of  baptism,  but  not  on  the  necessity  of  celebrating 
the  Lord's  Supper,  in  the  manner  of  Christ  and  the 
apostles.  It  is  said,  that  they  celebrated  it  at  evening, 
in  an  upper  room,  reclining  at  their  table ;  and  why 
should  we  not  with  equal  reason  urge  conformity  to 
their  example  in  these  particulars?  I  ansv/er,  these 
particulars  are  not  mentioned  in  the  law.  The 
Christian  dispensation  has  but  two  rites;  and  the 
acts  essential  to  these,  are  involved  in  precisely  three 
ENACTING  TERMS — Lmmerse,  Eat,  Drink.  Thcsc  words 
are  words  of  command  ;  they  are  in  the  imperative 
mood.  Here  is  the  Christian  ritual.  We  have  no 
more  right  to  alter  one  part  than  we  have  to  obliterate 
the  whole.  To  do  either,  is  to  act  on  a  principle 
12^ 


138 

which,  if  followed  out,  would  subvert  the  authority 
of  Christ  as  a  legislator.  When  we  shall  stand  in 
his  holy  presence,  and  our  past  life  shall  be  reviewed, 
we  shall  doubtless  feel  it  to  have  been  a  serious 
business,  to  interpret  to  others  the  meaning  of.  those 
words  which  express  the  specific  actions  enjoined,  by 
him  on  every  believer. 

HOW    SPRINKLING    CAME    TO    BE    CALLED    BAPTISM. 

It  is  an  historical  fact,  and  worthy  to  be  remem- 
bered on  account  of  its  bearings  in  this  discussion, 
that  sprinkling  came  to  be  called  baptism,  not  on 
philological  grounds,  not  in  view  of  the  meaning  of 
the  words,  but  on  the  ground  of  church  authority. 
A  power  arose  in  Christendom,  which,  after  corrupt- 
ing Christian  doctrines,  began  to  "think  to  change 
times  and  laws."  Having  made  baptism  essential 
to  salvation,  it  mercifully  decreed  that  if  an  unbap- 
tized  person  could  not  be  removed  from  his  bed,  the 
application  of  water  to  him  in  the  bed  should  be 
considered  as  baptism ;  but  only  in  this  case  of 
necessity.^  As  sprinkling  afterwards  became  more 
common,  arguments  in  favor  of  calling  it  baptism, 
began  to  be  urged  from  cen3.m  figurative  uses  of  the 
latter  term.  The  fallacy  of  these  arguments  has 
been  shown ;  prevailing  custom  gave  them  currency 
in  Europe,  and  reverence  for  custom  has  given  them 
influence  in  this  country. 

THE    ARGUMENT    FROM   FIGURES. 

The  most  curious  instances  of  endeavoring  to 
establish  the  proper  meaning  of  a  word  from  its 
figurative  uses,  embrace  the  word  bapto,  not  baptizo: 
and  of  these,  the  strangest,  is  that  one  cited  from 
Homer's  poem,  entitled  "  The  Battle  of  the  Frogs 
and  Mice."  The  whole  poem  is  hyperbolical, 
abounding  in  the  boldest  exaggeration.  Fifteen  of 
the  mice,  and  eighteen  of  the  frogs,  have  names  given 
to  them  as  leading  combatants.  Jupiter  calls  a 
council  of  the  frogs,  to  arrest  the  conflict,  and  when 

*  See  page  114. 


139 

he  interposes  by  his  thunder,  the  earth  quakes  from 
pole  to  pole.  Pope's  translation  gives  us  the  spirit  of 
the  poem,  in  those  lines  where  Jupiter  cries, 

What  seas  of  blood  I  view,  what  worlds  of  slain; 
An  Iliad  rising  from  a  day's  campaign! 

Well,  to  show  what  an  awful  event  was  the  death 
of  one  of  the  heroes,  a  fighting  frog  named  Cram- 
bophagus,  Homer  tells  us  that  the  lake  was  dyed 
with  his  blood.  The  idea  which  the  spirit  of  the 
piece  presents  to  the  view,  is  that  of  a  lake  appearing 
as  if  it'had  been  turned  into  blood,  or  covered  with 
it.  To  form  an  hyperbole  for  the  occasion.  Homer 
seizes  a  Avord  used  to  denote  the  dyeing  of  any  thing 
by  covering  it  with  a  liquid.  Such  a  word  was 
bapto^  which,  if  it  meant  to  sprinkle,  would  have 
made  no  hyperbole^  and  would  not  have  suited  his 
purpose.  If  from  this  figure  of  Homer,  it  follows 
that  bapto  means  to  sprinkle,  it  would  follow  from 
the  poet  Cowley's  hyperbole,  that  to  drown  means 
merely  to  wet^  for  he  says  of  Goliath,  that  he  lay 
"drowned  in  his  own  blood."  If  such  principles  of 
reasoning  were  admitted,  language  would  fail  to 
convey  any  ideas  with  certainty. 

BRIEF     SUMMARY. 

In  order  to  come  to  a  just  conclusion  touching  a 
discussion,  it  is  necessary  to  keep  clearly  in  mind 
the  main  points  on  which  it  must  turn.  In  the  pres- 
ent case,  these  points  are  comprised  in  a  few  facts 
and  PRINCIPLES. 

One  great  fact  is  this,  that  in  the  first  ages  of 
Christianity,  immersion  prevailed  throughout  the 
world. — See  pp.  58,  114,  &c.  The  ancient  baptisteries 
of  Europe  still  stand  as  proofs  of  this. 

Another  great  fact  is,  that  the  first  deviations 
from  this  rule  were  allowed  in  behalf  of  those  who 
were  confined  to  beds  of  sickness,  and  were  called 
clinic  baptisms.  The  superstitious  notion  that  the 
outward  rite  was  of  saving  efiicacy,  introduced  these 
exceptions. — See  p.' 114,  and  the  articles  there  refer- 
red to. 


140 

The  third  great  fact  is,  that  when,  at  the  time  of 
the  Reformation,  the  church  emerged  from  papal 
darkness,  the  leading  Reformers  acknowledged  that 
immersion  was  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word  bap- 
tism— the  undoubted  practice  of  the  primitive  church. 
On  this  point,  the  testimony  of  Luther,  for  instance, 
is  quite  decisive.  On  no  subject,  am  I  able  to  cite 
proofs  more  clear.— See  pp.  23,  24,  25,  100,  1 10.  In 
the  preceding  pages  I  have  said  nothing  of  Melanc- 
THON,  who  seems  to  have  felt  more  deeply  on  this 
subject  than  the  rest,  and  perceiving  the  Reformers' 
lack  of  consistency,  confessed  that  here  was  the 
^'  WEAK  POINT "  of  Protestantism.  The  Elector  of 
Saxony,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  dissuaded  them  from 
the  full  discussion  of  the  subject.^  It  is  a /ad  of 
great  importance,  that  in  this  respect,  the  Reformers 
themselves  confessed  that  the  Reformation  was  im- 
perfect. I  say,  if  this  be  proved  to  be  a  fact,  it  is  a 
momentous  one,  and  ought  to  have  great  weight  in 
this  free  country,  in  determining  the  controvery.     Is 

it  not  PROVED? 

A  fourth  great  fact  is,  that  in  the  German  Bible, 
the  word  baptize,  was  translated  by  a  word  denoting 
immersion.  That  word  is  taiifen.  See  Luther's 
testimony  upon  it,  p.  25. 

A  fifth  great  fact  is,  that  the  leading  scholars 
whom  the  Reformation  produced,  followed  Luther 
with  their  testimonies  to  the  true  import  of  the  word. 
See  the  coticessions  of  Beza,  Casaubon  and  Witsius, 
in  their  criticisms  on  the  Sybilline  verse,  pp.  15,  16. 
Also  that  of  Turretin,  on  the  same  passage,  pp.  13 — 
15,  21,  22.     To  these  many  more  might  be  added. 

A  sixth  great  fact  is,  that  the  leading  writers  of 
the  Greeks  and  Latins,  men  who  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  Protestant  Reformation,  unite  in  their  tes- 
timonies to  the  same  point. 

A  seventh  great  fact  is,  that  the  Romish  writers 
use  the  same  kind  of  reasoning,  to  defend  their  doc- 
trine and  the  sacrifices  of  the  mass,  as  the  advocates 

*  For  proof  of  this  latter  fact,  my  limits  will  allow  me  only  to  refer  the  reader 
to  my  Historical  Discourse,  Providence,  1839,  pp.  65,  173. 


141 

of  sprinkling  use  to  defend  that  ceremony.  See  pp. 
66 — 70.  To  this  may  be  added  the  fact,  that  the 
Catholics  have  always  warded  off  the  arguments  of 
the  Protestants  against  the  changes  made  by  the 
Papal  church  in  the  administration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  by  the  retort, .that  the  church  has  as  much 
authority  to  change  one  ordinance  as  the  other. 
See  Bossuet's  Tract  on  Communion  in  both  kinds. 

All  these  are  real  facts^  or  they  are  not.  If  they 
are,  they  will  be  decisive  with  a  consistent  Protes- 
tant. And  my  most  earnest  assertion  is,  that  no 
man  can  invaUdate  the  testimony  to  their  reality, 
without  subverting  the  foundation  of  all  historical 
evidence,  and  thus  opening  the  way  for  a  palsying 
skepticism  touching  the  grounds  of  belief,  and  the 
certainty  of  all  knowledge. 

Admitting  the  Bible  to  be  the  true  standard  of  faith 
and  practice,  the  great  pkinciples  on  which  this 
discussion  turns  are  these, — 

1.  In  the  baptismal  law — that  is,  in  the  Great 
Commission,  the  enacting  term,  is  not  used  in  any 
figurative  sense,  but  has  its  proper  meaning — the 
same  as  have  the  enacting  terms  eat  and  drink  in. 
the  command  to  observe  the  Eucharist,  the  only 
other  Christian  rite  enjoined  on  us. 

The  second  great  principle  is,  that  where  we  have 
an  explicit  and  universal  law,  enjoining  a  positive 
institution,  the  church  has  no  right  to  take  unto 
herself  the  authority,  to  affix  to  the  terms  of  that  law 
any  new  or  modern  meaning,  nor  to  alter  the  rite 
itself,  for  reasons  derived  from  expediency,  instruc- 
tiveness,  convenience,  or  any  other  ground. 

If  these  principles  are  acknowledged  to  be  true, 
then  the  cause  which  I  advocate  is  established.  If 
they  are  not  true,  then  I  know  not  where  to  find 
firm  footing  in  order  to  stem  the  floods  of  skeptical 
and  papal  errors  which  are  ever  raging  around  us, 
and  which  will  surely  prevail  against  us,  if  we  leave 
any  "  weak  point"  exposed  to  their  power. 


142 

CONCLUSION. 

In  closing  my  Examination  of  the  Rejoinder,  I 
would  now  commend  the  suggestions  which  it  con- 
tains, to  the  calm  and  prayerful  consideration  of  the 
reader.  Let  him  remember,  that,  although  the  ob- 
servance of  an  outward  rite  has  not  in  itself  any 
saving  efficacy,  it  does  not  thence  follow  that  it  is  of 
little  importance.  A  few  words  from  Dr.  Barnes,  in 
his  commentary  on  Mark  16  :  16,  is  quite  to  the 
point  in  this  place.  He  says,  "  It  is  worthy  of  remark, 
that  Jesus  has  made  baptism  of  so  much  importance. 
He  did  7iot  say,  indeed,  that  a  man  could  not  be 
saved  without  baptism,  but  he  has  strongly  implied 
that  if  this  is  neglected,  knowing  it  to  be  a  command  of 
the  Saviour^  it  endangers  the  salvation  of  the  soul. 
Faith  and  baptism  are  the  beginnings  of  a  Christian 
life;  the  one,  the  beginning  of  piety  in  the  soul,  the 
other,  of  its  manifestation  before  men,  or  of  a  profes- 
sion of  religion.  And  no  man  can  tell  how  much  he 
endangers  his  eternal  interest,  by  being  ashamed  of 
Christ  before  men."  To  this  it  may  be  added,  that 
no  one  can  tell  the  ultimate  results  upon  the  church 
herself,  of  any  departure  from  the  institutions  of 
Jesus  Christ.  The  grand  anti-christian  apostasy 
was  brought  about  by  slight  deviations  from  apostolic 
practice ;  and  the  principle,  that  the  church  has  a 
right  to  alter  or  dispense  with  a  divine  command,  is 
a  basis  strong  and  broad  enough  to  bear  up  the 
main  pillars  of  the  system  of  popery. 

The  little  advance  which  Protestants  have  made  in 
Europe  since  the  days  of  Luther,  the  increasing 
influence  of  the  Romish  Church  in  England  and  on 
the  Continent,  and  the  tendency  to  Papal  doctrines 
throughout  the  realm  of  Protestantism,  are  sufficient 
to  suggest  the  inquiry,  whether  there  be  not  some- 
thing wrong  in  the  constitution  of  many  churches, 
which  have,  as  to  cardinal  doctrines,  a  correct 
confession  of  faith.  The  decline  of  piety,  years  ago, 
among  the  churches  planted  by  the  Puritans  in 
Massachusetts,  is  a  moral  phenomenon  worthy  of 
study.      What    an   instructive   fact  is   that   which 


143 

occurs  in  the  history  of  President  Edwards — the 
dissohition  of  his  pastoral  relation  to  his  church  in 
New  England.  How  remarkable,  that  even  he, 
whose  mental  powers  so  far  transcended  those  of 
other  men,  and  whose  piety  was  commensurate  with 
his  intellect,  could  not  urge  the  Christian  rule,  that 
none  should  partake  at  the  Lord's  table  except  those 
who  gave  evidence  of  a  change  of  heart,  without 
loosening  the  bonds  which  united  him  to  his  people  ! 
Time  was,  when  even  in  Boston,  the  spiritual 
doctrines  of  the  Puritans  were  scarcely  heaid  at  all, 
except  from  a  Baptist  pulpit,  then  occupied  by  the 
venerable  Dr.  Stillman,  on  whose  lips,  for  more  than 
a  quarter  of  a  century,  crowds  habitually  hung  with 
delight  and  profit.  This  fact  was  once  candidly 
recognized  by  Rev.  Dr.  Lyman  Beecher,  when 
addressing  the  church  to  which  Stillman  once 
ministered.  Said  he,  "your  lamp  was  burning 
when  ours  had  gone  out."  Great  as  was  the  per- 
sonal piety  of  the  Puritans,  and  of  many  of  their 
successors,  the  constitution  of  their  churches  was  not 
adapted  to  preserve  the  purity  of  their  doctrines. 

And  let  it  be  asked,  what  can  be  better  fitted  to 
secularize  the  church,  and  ultimately  to  embarrass 
her  progress,  than  the  operation  of  the  principle  that 
an  infant  comes  into  the  church  as  well  as  into  the 
state  by  virtue  of  its  natural  birth;  and,  as  in  the 
latter  case,  it  is  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  citizen- 
ship, so,  in  the  former,  it  is  entitled  to  the  sealing  rite 
of  baptism.  Such  a  principle  must  be  corrupting, 
and  where  its  deleterious  results  are  not  seen  in  the 
general  condition  of  the  church,  it  may  be  for  want 
of  time  fully  to  develop  them,  or  because  its  legiti- 
mate tendencies  are  mercifully  arrested  by  the 
providence  of  God,  or  the  gracious  influences  of  his 
Holy  Spirit.  Deeply  was  1  once  affected  by  this 
thought,  when  a  missionary  of  the  Presbyterian 
church,  who  has  for  years  been  laboring  in  Europe, 
frankly  confessed  to  me,  that  he  Avished  the  nation 
to  whom  he  had  been  sent,  knew  nothing  of  infant 
baptism,  because  then,  he  might  have  a  closer  access 


144 

to  their  conscienceSj  and  by  rousing  in  their  bosoms 
a  sense  of  sin,  might  lead  them  to  embrace  the  gospel. 

But  while  I  speak  thus  of  the  tendency  of  a 
constitution  and  the  effects  of  a  system,  I  rejoice  to 
know  that  there  are  so  many  in  the  various  denomi- 
nations of  Christendom  whom  I  can  hail  as  fellow- 
disciples,  and  with  whom  I  can  cherish  spiritual 
communion.  Yes.even  among  the  Catholics,  who  have 
changed  both  the  ordinances  of  Christ,  and  among 
the  Quakers,  who  have  extirpated  both,  I  have  met 
with  those  who  hold  the  Head,  Jesus  Christ,  and  who 
seem  to  be  acting  "  accorfling  to  their  light."  The 
first  of  these  sects  inculcate  a  gorgeous  and  unau- 
thorized system  of  rites,  and  the  other  have  no  rites 
at  all ;  yet  among  them  both,  I  have  known  those 
whom  I  hold  as  Christians,  and  hope  to  meet  in 
heaven.  Their  peculiar  systems,  I  must  oppose — 
the  arguments  for  them  I  would  fain  refute,  and  the 
effects  of  them  I  deplore ;  but  as  to  themselves  per- 
sonally, if  they  honor  the  cross  of  Christ,  cherish  his 
spirit,  and  love  him  as  a  Saviour,  I  would  esteem 
them  as  brethren,  honor  them  for  their  virtues,  and 
rejoice  that,  in  any  respect,  they  are  "fellow-helpers 
to  the  truth." 

Still,  while  I  hold  my  heart  and  mind  open  to  a 
just  appreciation  of  all  that  is  good  in  those  who 
differ  from  me,  and  say  with  Paul,  "  as  far  as  we 
have  attained,  let  us  walk  by  the  same  rule,  and 
mind  the  same  thing,"  my  desire  is,  that  the  day 
may  soon  come,  when  the  principle,  that  the  Bible 
is  the  only  rule  of  a  Christian's  faith,  shall  be  exalted 
to  a  practical  supremacy  throughout  Christendom, — 
when  in  regard  to  baptism,  the  simple  object  of  each 
inquirer  will  be  to  know  what  the  Savmir  meant  by 
the  command  contained  in  his  Great  Commission^ 
and  when,  in  the  spirit  of  universal  obedience,  the 
united  church,  bowing  at  the  feet  of  Jesus,  shall  say. 

Our  gracious  God,  how  plain 
Are  thy  directions  given! 

"  thy  word  giveth  light,  it  giveth  understanding  to 
the  simple." 


bahiablc    iB0rk0, 

PUBLISHED    AND    FOR    SALE    BY 

GOULD,  KENDALL  AND  LINCOLN, 

PUBLISHERS,  BOOKSELLERS,  AND  STATIONERS, 

59  WASHINGTO]N  STREET. 

B   ©   i  IP  ©  If  o 


THE 

ELEMENTS  OF  POLITICAL  ECONOMY, 

By  Francis  Wayland,.  D.  D.j  President  of  Browa  University. 

SIXTH   EDITION. 

This  work  is  adopted  as  a  text-book  in  rnany  of  our  principal  Colleges,  and 
has  an  extensive  sale. 

THE  ELEMExNTS  OF 

POLITICAL  ECONOMY,  ABRIDGED. 

ADAPTED  TO  THE  USE  OF  SCHOOLS  AND  ACADEMIES. 

The  success  tchich  has  attended  the  abridqmeiit  of  the  "  The  Elements  of 
Moral  Science,"  has  induced  the  author  to  prepare  the  follotcing  abridg^nent 
of  '•  The  Elements  of  Political  Economy."  hi  this  case,  as  in  the  other,  the 
work  has  been  loholly  re-written,  and  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  adapt  it  to 
the  attainments  of  youth. 

"The  original  work  of  the  author,  on  Political  Economy,  has  already  been 
noticed  on  our  pages;  and  the  present  abridgment  stands  in  no  need  of  a  recom- 
mendation from  us.  We  may  be  permitted,  however,  to  say,  that  both  the  rising 
and  risen  generations  are  deeply  indebted  to  Dr.  Wayland,  for  the  skill  and  power 
he  has  put  forth  to  bring  a  highly  important  subject  distinctly  before  them, within 
such  narrow  limits.  Though  "abridged  for  the  use  of  academies,''  it  deserres  to 
be  introduced  into  every  private  family,  and  to  be  studied  by  every  man  who  has  an 
interest  in  the  wealth  and  prosperity  of  his  country.  It  is  a  subject  little  under- 
stood, even  practically,  by  thousands,  and  still  less  understood  theoretically.  It 
is  to  be  hoped,  this  will  form  a  class  book,  and  be  faithfully  studied  in  our  acade- 
mies; and  that  it  will  find  its  way  into  every  family  library;  not  there  to  be  shut 
up  unread,  but  to  afford  rich  material  for  thought  and  discussion  in  the  family 
circle.  It  is  fitted  to  enlarge  the  mind,  to  purify  the  judgment,  to  correct  erro- 
neous popular  impressions, "and  assist  every  man  in  forming  opinions  of  public 
measures,  which  will  abide  the  test  of  time  and  experience."  -Boston  Recorder. 

"An  abridgment  of  this  clear,  common  sense  work,  designed  for  the  use  of 
academies,  is  just  published.  We  rejoice  to  sec  such  treatises  spreading  among 
the  people:  and  we  urge  all  who  would  be  intelligent  freemen,  to  read  them."— 
New  York  Transcript. 

"We  can  say,  with  safety,  that  the  topics  are  well  selected  and  arranged;  that 
the  author's  name  is  a  guarantee  for  more  than  usual  excellence.  We  wish  it  an 
extensive  circulation."— AetP  York  Observer. 

"It  is  well  adapted  to  high  schools,  and  embraces  the  soundest  system  of 
republican  Political  Economy  of  any  treatise  extant."— i?a%  Advertiser. 


THE 

ELEMENTS  OF  MORAL  SCIENCE, 

BY    FRANCIS    WAYLAND,    D.    D. 

President  of  Brown  University,  and  Professor  of  Moral  Philosophy. 

Twenty-First  Thousand. 

td^This  work  has  been  extensively  and  favorably  reviewed  in  the  leading 
periodicals  of  the  day,  and  has  already  been  adopted  as  a  class-book  in  most  of 
the  collegiate,  theological,  and  academical  institutions  of  the  country. 

"The  work  of  Dr.  Wayland  has  arisen  gradually  from  the  necessity  of  correcting 
the  false  princi|)les  and  fallacious  reasonmgs  of  Paley.  It  is  a  radical  mistake,  in 
the  education  of  youth,  to  permit  any  book  to  be  used  by  students  as  a  text-book, 
which  contain  erroneous  doctrines,  especially  when  these  are  fundamental,  and 
tend  to  vitiate  the  whole  system  of  n)orals.  We  have  been  greatly  pleased  with 
the  method  which  Pres  Wayland  has  adopted:  he  goes  back  to  the  simplest  and 
most  fundamental  principles;  and,  in  the  statement  of  his  views,  he  unites  per- 
spicuity with  conciseness  and  precision.  In  all  the  author's  leading  fundamental 
principles  we  entirely  concur." — Bib.  Rep.  and  Theol,  lievinc. 

From  Rev.  Wilbur  Fisk,  Pres.  of  the  Wesleyan  University. 

"I  have  examined  it  with  great  satisfaction  and  interest.  The  work  was 
greatly  needed,  and  is  well  executed.  Dr.  Wayland  deserves  the  grateful 
acknowledgments  and  liberal  patronage  of  the  public.  I  need  say  nothing 
further  to  express  my  high  estimate  of  the  work,  than  that  we  shall  immediately 
adopt  it  as  a  text-book  in  our  university." 

From  Hon.  James  Kent,  late  Chancellor  of  the  State  of  Neic  York. 

"The  work  has  been  read  by  me  attentively  and  thoroughly,  and  I  think  very 
highly  of  it.  The  author  himself  is  one  of  the  most  estimable  of  men,  and  I  do 
not  know  of  any  ethical  treatise,  in  which  our  duties  to  God,  and  to  our  fellow- 
men,  are  laid  down  with  more  precision,  simplicity,  clearness,  enerey,  and 
truth." 

THE  ELEMENTS  OF 

MORAL  SCIENCE,  ABRIDGED. 

ADAPTED  TO  THE  USE  OF  SCHOOLS  AND  ACADEMIES. 

Seventeenth  Thousand. 

D3°"The  attention  of  Teachers  and  School  Committees  is  invited  to  this 
valuable  work.  It  has  received  the  unqualified  approbation  of  all  who  have 
examined  it;  and  it  is  believed  to  be  admirably  adapted  to  exert  a  wholesome 
influence  on  the  minds  of  the  young,  and  lead  to  the  formation  of  correct  moral 
principles. 

"  Dr.  Wayland  has  published  an  abridgment  of  his  work  for  the  use  of  schools. 
Of  this  step  we  can  hardly  speak  too  highly.  It  is  more  than  time  that  the  study 
of  Moral  Philosophy  should  be  introduced  into  all  our  institutions  of  education. 
We  are  happy  to  see  the  way  so  auspiciously  opened  for  such  an  introduction. 
It  has  been  "not  merely  abridged,  but  also  re-icritten."  We  cannot  but  regard 
the  labor  as  all  well  bestowed.  The  difficulty  of  choosing  words  and  examples  so 
as  to  make  them  intelligible  and  interesting  to  the  child,  is  very  sreat.  The 
success  with  which  Dr.  Wayland  appears  to  have  overcome  it,  is,  in  the  highest 
degree,  gratifying." — North  American  Revieto. 

THOUGHTS 

ON  THE  PRESENT  COLLEGIATE  SYSTEM  IN  THE  U.  S. 

By  Francib  Wayland,  D.  D. 
"These  Thoughts  come  from  a  source  entitled  tovery  respectful  attention;  and 
as  the  author  goes  over  the  wliole  ground  of  collegiate  education,  criticising  freely 
all  the  arrangements  in  every  department  and  in  all  their  bearmes,  the  book  is 
rery  full  of  matter.  We  hope  it  will  prove  the  beginninsof  a  thorourh  discussion. 
It  IS  a  noiiceable  fact,  that  none,  or  next  to  none,  of  the  reforms  tliat  have  been 
attempted  in  some  of  our  colleges  within  fifteen  or  twenty  years,  have  succeeded. 
Yet  the  public  mind  is  not  very  easy  on  the  subject ;  Dr.  Wayland  is  not  satisfied; 
and  the  minds  of  other  gentlemen  similarly  situated,  are  in  like  position." 

2 


PALEY'S  NATURAL  THEOLOGY, 

Illustrated  by  forty  Plates,  and  Selections  from  the  Notes  of  Dr.  Paxton; 

With  additional  Notes,  original  and  selected,  for  this  edition; 

With  a  Vocabulary  of  Scientific  terms. 

Edited  by  John  Ware,  M.  P. 

tr3=-Thi3  work  is  the  Text-Book  in  most  of  the  Colleges  throughout  the  country. 

"Tlie  work  before  us  is  one  which  deserves  rather  to  be  studied,  than  merely 
read.  Indeed,  wiiiiout  diligent  attention  and  study,  neither  the  excellences  of  it 
can  be  fully  discovered,  nor  its  advantages  realized.  It  is  therefore  gratifying  to 
fi:id  it  introduced,  as  a  text-book,  into  the  colleges  and  literary  institutions  of  our 
country.  The  edition  before  us  is  superior  to  any  we  have  seen,  and,  we  believe, 
superior  to  any  that  has  yet  been  published." — Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims. 

"  Perhaps  no  one  of  our  author's  works  gives  greater  satisfaction  to  all  classes  of 
readers,  the  young,  and  the  old,  the  ignorant,  and  the  enliglilened.  Indeed,  we 
recollect  no  book  In  which  the  arguments  for  the  existence  and  attributes  of  the 
Supreme  Being,  to  be  drawn  from  his  works,  are  exhibited  in  a  manner  more  at- 
tractive and  more  convincing." — Christian  Ejcamiiier. 

"  "We  hail  the  appearance  of  Paley's  Theology  with  unfeigned  pleasure.  No  man 
is  an  atheist  after  reading  the  work.  Infidelity  changes  its  character,  and  becomes 
downright  and  wilful  opposition  to  the  truth,  after  it  has  gone  over  the  pages  be- 
fore us.  We  recommend  to  all  young  men  who  may  see  this  article,  to  procure  a 
copy  of  it  forthwith;  we  advise  parents  to  procure  it  for  their  sons  and  for  their 
daughters." — Trumpet. 

THE 

CLASS  BOOK  OF  NATURAL  THEOLOGY; 

Or,  the  Testimony  of  Nature  to  the  Being,  Perfections,  and  Government  of  God. 
By  Rev.  Henry  Fergus.     Revised,  enlarged,  and  adapted  to  Paxton's 
Illustrations;   with  Notes,  selected  and  original,  Biographi- 
cal Notices,  and  a  Vocabulary  of  Scientific  Terms. 
By  the  Rev.  Charles  Henry  Alden,  A.  M., 
Principal  of  the  Philadelphia  High  School 
for  Young  Ladies.     Third  edition. 
"  We  are  glad  to  see  this  work  of  Fergus  brought  before  the  public  with  advan- 
tages likelyto  engage  attention,  and  sure  to  promote  its  usefulness.     We  are  es- 
pecially pleased,  that  this  has  been  done  by  one  whose  reputation  and  devotion  in 
the  cause  of  female  education  will  be  a  sufficient  recommendation  of  it  to  those 
whom  it  seems  to  have  bjen  his  particular  design  to  benefit.     A  growing  attention 
to  tiiis  branch  of  education,  and  considerable  improvements  in  it,  have  of  late  ap- 
peared.   The  book,  as  now  presented,  is  better  fitted  for  a  class-book  on  natural 
th'jology,  than  any  with  which  we  are  acquainted.    The  style  of  it  is  free  and  easy, 
yet  concise,  and  withal  exceedingly  chaste  and  classical, — the  production  of  a  well- 
disciplined,  well-stored,  and  pure  mind.    The  author  treats  of  the  origin  of  the 
world,  the  evidences  of  design  in  nature,  the  perfections  of  the  Deity.     These,  and 
his  various  topics,  are  illustrated  by  Paxton's  admirable  plates,  heretofore  published 
in  c  mnection  with  Dr.  Paley's  work  on  the  same  subject.     These,  together  with 
t';ie  notes  and  explanations  of  the  American  editor,  are  important  additions,  and 
conta'o  mucti  valual)le  information.    Besides  these,  there  is  inserted  a  lecture  by 
Dr.  Mitchell,  of  Philadelphia,  on  "the  wisdom  of  God  in  the  formation  of  water," 
which  is  consonant  wiih  the  general  spirit  of  the  work,  and  abounds  in  wise  and 
happy  reflections." — Episcopal  Recorder. 

"The  general  plan  of  the  work  is  excellent,  and  the  details,  so  far  as  we  can 
judge,  are  good.  We  take  a  delight  in  running  our  eye  over  such  a  work  as  this  ; 
it  reconciles  us  with  our  lot,  and  vindicates  "the  ways  of  God  to  man."  It  serves 
to  awaken  curiosity  in  the  young  student,  to  extend  and  gratify  inquiry,  and  to 
lead  him  from  the  objects  of  creation  around  him,  "to  him  in  whom  we  live  and 
move,  and  have  our  being."  It  is  a  most  admirable  study  for  schools.  'The 
proper  study  of  mankind  is  man.'" — U.  S.  Gazette. 

"  We  do  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  the  work  one  of  the  best  class  books  we  hare 
examined.     It  must  have  an  extensive  sale  "—Journal  of  Belles  Lettres. 

3 


ROMAN  ANTIQUITIES 

AND  AK.CIENT  MYTHOLOGY. 

By  Charles  K.  Dillaway,  A.  M»,  Principal  in  the  Boston  Public  Latin  School. 
Illustrated  by  elegant  Engravings.    Sixth  edition,  improved. 

tCl^This  work  is  rapidly  coming  into  use  all  over  our  country;  it  is  already  in- 
troduced into  most  of  our  High  Schools  and  Academies,  and  many  of  our  Colleges. 
A  new  and  beautiful  edition  has  just  been  published. 

"In  a  small  duodecimo,  of  about  a  hundred  and  fifty  pages,  he  concentrates  the 
most  valuable  and  interesting  paniculais  relatiiig  toRcman  antiquity;  tcigtther 
with  as  full  an  account  of  heathen  mythology  as  is  generally  needed  in  our  highest 
seminaries.  A  peculiar  merit  of  this  compilation,  and  one  which  will  gain  it 
admission  into  our  higlily  respcctable/(7?ioi?e  seminaries,  is  the  total  ahserce  of  all 
allusion,  even  the  most  remote,  to  the  disgusting  obscenities  of  ancient  mythology; 
while,  at  the  same  time,  nothing  is  omitted  which  a  pure  mind  would  feel  interested 
to  know.  We  recommend  the" book  as  a  valuable  addition  to  the  treatises  in  our 
schools  and  academies." — Education  Reporter,  Boston. 

From  E.  Bailey,  Principal  of  the  Young  Ladies'  High  School,  Boston. 

"Having  used  Dillaicay's  Roman  Antiquities  and  Ancient  Mythology  in  my 
school  for  several  years,  I  commend  it  to  teachers,  with  great  confidence.'as  a  valu- 
able text-book  on  those  interesting  branches  of  education.  E.  Bailey. 

"Wo  well  remember,  in  the  days  of  our  pupilage,  how  unpopular  as  a  study  wa.s 
the  volume  of  Roman  Antiquities  introduced  in  the  academic  course.  It  wearied 
on  account  of  its  prolixity,  filling  a  thick  octavo,  and  was  the  prescribed  task  each 
afternoon  for  a  long  three  months.  It  was  reserved  for  one  of  our  Boston  instruc- 
tors to  apply  the  condensing  apparatus  to  this  mass  of  crudities,  and  so  tomodtrn- 
ize  the  antiquities  of  tlie  old  Romans,  as  to  make  a  befitting  abridgn  enl  forschools 
of  the  first  order.  Mr.  Dillaway  has  presented  such  a  compilation  as  must  be  in- 
teresting to  lads,  and  become  popular  as  a  text-book.  Historical  facts  are  stated 
with  great  simplicity  and  clearness;  the  most  important  points  are  seized  upon, 
while  trifling  peculiarities  are  passed  unnoticed." — American  Traveller. 

YOUNG  LADIES'  CLASS  EOOK; 

A  Selection  of  Lessons  for  Reading  in  Prose  and  Verse.     By  E.  Bailey,  A.  M., 

Principal  of  ihe  Young  Ladies'  High  School,  Boston. 

Twenty-third  Stereotype  Edition. 

From  the  Principals  of  the  Public  Schools  for  Females,  Boston. 

"Gentlemen: — We  have  examined  the  Young  Ladies'  Class  Book  with  interest 

and  pleasure;  with  interest,  because  we  have  felt  tlie  want  of  a  Reading  Book 

expressly  designed  for  the  use  of  females;   and  with  pleasure,  because  we  have 

found  it  well  adapted  to  supply  the  deficiency.     In  the  selections  for  a  Reader 

designed  for  boys,  the  eloquence  of  the  bar,  the  puljjit,  and  tlie  forum,  may  be  laid 

under  heavy  contriljution ;   but  such  selections,  we  conceive,  are  out  of  place  in  a 

book  designed  for  feiriules.     We  have  been  pleased,  therefore,  to  observe,  that  in 

the  Young  Ladies'  Class  Book  such  pieces  are  rare.     The  high-toned  morality,  tlie 

freedom  from  sectarianism,  the  taste,  richness,  and  adaptation  of  the  selections, 

added  to  the  neatness  of  its  external  appearance,  must  con  meiid  it  to  all;  while 

the  practical  teacher  will  not  fail  to  observe  that  diversity  of  style,  together  with 

those  peculiar  jjoints,  the  want  of  which,  few,  who  have  not  felt,  know  how  to 

supply.  Respectfully  yours,  Abraham  Andrews, 

Charles  Fox, 
Barntm  Field, 
R.  G.  Parker. 
From  the  Principal  of  the  Mount  Vernon  School,  Boston. 
"I  have  examined  with  much  interest  the  Young  Ladies'  Class  Book,  by  Mr. 
Bailey,  and  have  been  very  highly  pleased  with  its  contents.    It  is  my  intention  to 
introduce  it  into  iny  own  school,  as  I  regard   it  as  not  only  reniarkat)ly  well  fitted 
to  answer  its  particular  object  as  a  book  of  exercises  in  the  art  of  elocution,  but  as 
calculated  to  have  an  influence  upon  the  character  and  conduct,  which  will  be  in 
every  respect  favorable.  Jacob  Abbott. 

4 


ELAKE'S  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHY. 

NEW    EDITION,    ENLARGED. 

Being  Conversations  on  Philosophy,  with  the  addition  of  Explanatory  Notes, 

Questions  for  Examination,  and  a  Dictionary  of  Philosophical  Terms. 

Illustrated  with  Twenty-eight  steel  engravings. 

By  Rev.  J.  L.  Blake,  D.  D. 

23^ Perhaps  no  work  has  contributed  so  much  as  this  to  excite  a  fondness  for 
the  study  of  Natural  Philosophy  in  youthful  minds.  The  familiar  comparisons 
with  which  it  abounds,  awaken  interest,  and  rivet  the  attention  of  the  pupil.  It  is 
introduced,  with  great  success,  into  the  public  schools  in  Boston. 

From  the  Rev.  J.  Adams,  Pres.  of  Charleston  College,  S.  C. 

"I  have  been  highly  gratified  with  the  perusal  of  your  edition  of  Conversations 

on  Natural  Philosophy.    The  Questions,  Notes,  and  Explanations  of  Terms,  are 

valuable  additions  to  the  work,  and  make  this  edition  superior  to  any  other  with 

which  1  am  acquainted.     I  shall  recommend  it  wherever  I  have  an  opportunity." 

'•We  avail  ourselves  of  the  opportunity  furnished  us  by  the  publication  of  a  new 
edition  of  this  deservedly  popular  work,  to  recommend  it,  not  only  to  those 
instructors  who  may  not  already  have  adopted  it,  but  also  generally  to  all  readers 
who  are  desirous  of  obtaining  information  on  the  subjects  on  which  it  treats.  By 
Questions  arranged  at  the  bottom  of  the  pages,  in  which  the  collateral  facts  are 
arranged,  he  directs  the  attention  of  the  learner  to  the  principal  topics.  Mr.  Blake 
has  also  added  many  Notes,  which  illustrate  the  passages  to  which  they  are 
appended,  and  the  Dictionary  of  Philosophical  Terms  is  a  useful  addition.— C^wtVed 
States  Literary  Gazette. 


BLAKE'S  FIRST  BOOK  IN  ASTRONOMY. 

Designed  for  the  Use  of  Common  Schools.    By  Rev.  J.  L.  Blake,  D.  D. 

Illustrated  by  Steel-Plate  Engravings. 

From  E.  Hinckley,  Prof,  of  Mathematics  in  the  University  of  Maryland. 
"I  am  much  indebted  to  you  for  a  copy  of  the  First  Book  in  Astronomy.  It  is  a 
work  of  utility  and  merit,  far  superior  to  any  other  which  I  have  seen.  The 
author  has  selected  his  topics  with  great  judgment, — arranged  them  in  admirable 
order, — exhibited  them  in  a  style  and  manner  at  once  tasteful  and  philosophical. 
Nothing  seems  wanting— nothing  redundant.  It  is  truly  a  very  beautiful  and 
attractive  book,  calculated  to  afford  both  pleasure  and  profit  to  all  who  may  enjo7 
the  advantage  of  perusing  it." 

From  B.  Field,  Principal  of  the  Hancock  School,  Boston. 
"I  know  of  no  other  work  on  Astronomy,  so  well  calculated  to  interest  and 
instruct  young  learners  in  this  sublime  science." 

"The  illustrations,  both  pictorial  and  verbal,  are  admirably  intelligible;  and  the 
definitions  are  such  as  to  be  easily  comprehended  by  juvenile  scholars.  The  author 
has  interwoven  with  his  scientific  instructions  much  interesting  historical  infor- 
mation, and  contrived  to  dress  his  philosophy  in  a  garb  truly  attractive." — New 
York  Daily  Evening  Journal. 

"  We  are  free  to  say,  that  it  is.  in  our  opinion,  decidedly  the  best  work  we  have 
any  knowledge  of,  on  the  sublime  and  interesiing  subject  of  Astronomy.  The 
engravings  are  executed  in  a  superior  style,  and  the  mechanical  appearance  of  the 
book  is  extremely  prepossessing.  The  knowledge  imparted  is  in  language  at  once 
chaste,  elegant  and  simple, — adapted  to  the  comprehension  of  those  for  whom  It 
is  desiened.  The  subject-matter  is  selected  with  great  judgment,  and  evinces 
uncommon  industry  and  research.  We  earnestly  hope  that  parents  and  teachers 
will  examine  and  judge  for  themselves,  as  we  feel  confident  they  will  coincide  with 
us  in  opinion.  We  only  hope  the  circulation  of  the  work  will  be  commensurate 
with  its  merits." — Boston  Evening  Gazette. 

"  We  do  not  hesitate  to  recommend  it  to  the  notice  of  the  superintending  com- 
mittees, teachers,  and  pupils  of  our  public  achoola."— State  Herald,  Portsmouth, 
*  6 


CLASSICAL  STUDIES. 

ESSAYS  ON  ANCIENT  LITERATURE  AND  ART. 

With  the  Biography  and  Correspondence  of  eminent  Philologisla. 
By  Barnas  Sears,  President  Newton  Theol.  Institution, 
B.B.Edwards,  Prof.  Andover  Theol.  Seminary,  and 
C.  C.  Felton,  Prof.  Harvard  University. 
"ThiselcTant  book  is  vsrorthy  of  a  more  extended  notice  than  our  limits  at  present 
will  permit'^us  to  give  to  it.  Great  labor  and  care  have  been  bestowed  upon  Us 
typographical  execution,  which  does  honor  to  tlie  American  press.  It  is  one  of  the 
rare  beauties  of  the  page,  that  not  a  word  is  divided  at  the  end  of  a  line.  Ine 
mechanical  part  of  tbe  work,  however,  is  its  least  praise.  It  is  unique  m  Us 
character,— standin?  alone  among  the  irmiimerable  books  of  this  book  mukmg  age. 
The  auiliors  well  de'serve  the  thanks  of  the  cultivated  and  discipluied  portion  ol 
the  community,  for  the  service  winch,  by  this  publication,  they  have  done  to  the 
cause  of  letters.  Amid  the  tide  of  influences  which  are  calculated  to  deteriorate 
our  litearture,  and  to  degrade  the  standard  of  taste  and  sound  learning,  we  feel 
under  great  obligations  to  those  who  endeavor  to  restore  the  authority  of  acknow- 
ledged models;  to  set  up  barriers  aa;ainst  the  sweeping  flood  of  a  woithless  litera- 
ture, which  is  spreading  far  and  wide  its  evil  results,  and  concerning  which  onr 
chief  consolation  is,  that  it  is  likely  to  be  as  transitory  as  it  is  deleterious.  Tlie 
book  is  a  plea  for  classical  learning.  While  its  fine  introduction  and  some  of  the 
essays  directly  avow  this  design,  the  correspondence  of  literary  men  which  it  con- 
tains, aims  indirectly  at  the  same  result.  The  book  is  of  a  high  order,  and  worthy 
of  the  attentive  perusal  of  every  scholar.  It  is  a  noble  monument  to  the  taste,  and 
judgment,  and  sound  learning  of  the  projectors,  and  will  yield,  we  doubt  not,  a 
rich  harvest  of  fame  to  themselves,  and  of  benefit  to  the  literary  interests  ot  our 
country." — Christian  Review. 

"The  design  of  this  work  is  to  inculcate  a  taste  for  classical  studies.  Its  mate- 
rials are  found  among  the  resources  of  the  German  and  Dutch  scholars,  who  liave 
distinguished  themselves  for  their  knowledtreof  the  Greek  and  Roman  classics;  but 
not  the  least  attractive  feature  to  the  general  reader  will  be  found  in  the  eUquent 
introduction,  wherein  the  argument  in  favor  of  classic  studies  in  our  own  a?e  and 
country,  is  presented  with  great  force,  and  with  a  purity  of  style  that  is  of  itself 
an  illustration  of  their  benefits."— i3«^  State  Democrat. 

"This  volume  is  no  common-place  production.  It  is  truly  refreshing,  when  we 
are  obliged  from  week  to  week  to  look  through  the  mass  of  book.s  which  increases 
upon  our  table,  many  of  which  are  extremely  attenuated  in  thougin  and  jejune  in 
style,  to  find  something  which  carries  us  back  to  the  pure  and  invigorating  in- 
fluence of  the  master  minds  of  antiquity.  The  gentlemen  who  have  produced^thia 
volume  deserve  the  cordial  thanks  of  the  literary  world."— A'cii'  Eyjg.  Puritan. 

"A  rare  and  beautiful  book  is  this.  Such  names  as  those  of  Sears,  Edwards  and 
Felton,  on  the  title-page  of  any  book,  would  be  regarded  SlS  prima  facie  evidence  of 
its  merits;  but  those  who  notice  'Classical  Studies,'  will  not  deem  the  announce- 
ment of  the  authors' names  sufRcient  praise.  The  first  thing  that  strikes  you, 
after  its  very  neat  binding,  is  its  typographical  execution.  It  is  an  honor  to  the 
American  press.  This  laook  will  do  good  in  our  colleges.  Every  student  will  want 
a  copy,  and  many  will  be  stimulated  by  its  perusal  to  a  more  vigorous  and  enthu- 
siastic pursuit  of  that  higher  and  more  solid  learning,  which  alone  deserves  to  be 
called  'classical.'  The  recent  tendencies  have  been  to  the  neglect  of  this,  and  we 
rejoice  in  this  timely  effort  of  minds  so  well  qualified  for  such  a  work." — Rejector. 
"Theobject  of  the  accomplished  gentlemen  who  have  engaged  in  its  preparation 
has  been,  to  foster  and  extend  among  educated  men,  in  this  country,  the  already 
growing  interest  in  classical  studies.  The  design  is  a  noble  and  generous  one,  and 
has  been  executed  with  a  taste  and  good  sense,  that  do  honor  both  to  the  writers 
and  the  publishers.  The  book  is  one  which  deserve.s  a  place  in  the  library  of  every 
educated  man.  To  those  now  engaged  in  classical  study  it  cannot  fail  to  he  highly 
useful,  while  to  the  more  advanced  scholar  it  will  open  new  sources  of  interestand 
delight  in  the  unforgotton  pursuits  of  his  earlier  days." — Providence  Journal. 

"The  work  has  been  prepared  by  three  gentlemen  connected  with  as  many  dif- 
ferent institutions,  who  seem  to  have  entered  upon  and  executed  their  labor  con 
amorc.  It  is  a  beautiful  example  of  the  attractive  force  of  elegant  and  useful  lit- 
erature, overcoming  the  repelling  elements  of  what  are  presumed  to  be  different 
creeds.  And  the  product  is  worthy  of  the  sacrifice,  if  there  have  been  one.  It  is 
an  elesant  and  valuable  tribute  to  the  value  of  classical  learning.  An  introductory 
essay  leaves  a  deep  and  delightful  impression  of  the  worth  and  use  of  classical 
studies."— CArts/mn  Mirror,  Portland. 

6 


GESENIUS'  HEBREW  GRAMMAR; 

Translated  from  the  Eleventh  German  Edition.    By  T.  J.  Conant,  Prof,  of  Hebrew 

and  of  Biblical  Criticism  and  Interpretation  in  the  Theol.  Institution  at 

Hamilton,  N.  Y.     With  a  Course  of  Kxercises  in  Hebrew  Grammar, 

and  a  Hebrew  Chrestomathy  , prepared  by  the  Translator, 

Third  Edition. 

"The  workof  Gesenius  requires  no  eulogy  from  us:  nor  is  this  the  place  to  enter 
into  a  detailed  examination  of  his  theoretical  views  or  practical  exposition  of  the 
structure  of  the  language;  but  we  concur  with  the  translator  in  considering  that, 
as  a  philosophical  arrangement  and  explanation  of  its  grammatical  phenomena,  il 
has  no  equal;  and  that  it  is  particularly  distinguished  by  a  chaste  simplicity,  and 
attractive  clearnessof  method —qualities  which  not  only  imply  a  correct  taste  and 
logical  understanding,  but  evince,  also,  a  thorough  mastery  of  the  subject.  Prof. 
Conant  has  rendered  a  substantial  service  to  the  cause  of  biblical  learning,  and  done 
honor  to  the  important  denomination  of  which  he  is  a  member.  Besides  executing 
with  excellent  tidelily  and  good  judgment  his  translation  of  the  Grammar  of  the 
great  Hebraist  of  the  age,  he  has  some  useful  additions  of  his  own,  and  has,  in  nu- 
merous instances,  corrected  mistakes  of  a  loo  common  class,  which,  if  they  give 
little  trouble  to  some  readers,  are  the  worst  annoyance  to  others, — that  of  errors  in 
reference.  He  has  also  made  additions  of  a  very  judicious  as  well  as  moral  charac- 
ter, in  a  series  of  grammatical  Exercises.  The  typographical  execution  is  in  the 
best  style  of  the  Cambridge  uni'-ersity  printers.  The  letter-press  is  beautilul,  and 
all  but  immaculate." — North  American  Revieio. 

"  Professor  Conant  has  executed  his  task  with  great  ability.  He  does  not  appear 
merely  in  the  character  of  a  translator:  the  Chrestomathy  and  Exercises  prepared 
by  him  form  a  very  valuable  addition  to  the  work.  The  latter,  especially,  are  pre- 
pared with  great  skill  and  ability,  in  such  a  way  as  to  lead  the  student  forward,  step 
by  step,  making  him  thoroughly  familiar  with  each  point  as  he  advances.  One 
other  point  of  extreme  importance  in  such  a  work,  we  must  not  fail  to  notice, — the 
corectness  ol  the  printing.  This  is  truly  wonderful.  And  when  we  add  that  the 
typography,— at  least  the  English  part  of  it, — is  as  beautiful  as  it  is  correct,  we 
have  siiid  as  much  as  is  necessary  to  reconmiead  the  book  to  all  students  of  the 
Hebrew." — Boston  Recorder. 

THE 

FOUR  GOSPELS,  WITH  NOTES, 

Chiefly  Explanatory;  intended  principally  for  Sabbath  School  Teachers  and  Bible 

Classes,  and  as  an  Aid  to  Family  Instruction.     By  Henry  J.  Ripley, 

Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  and  Interpretation  in 

the  Newton  Theological  Institution. 

Seventh  Edition. 

tl3~  This  work  should  be  in  the  hands  of  every  student  of  the  Bible;  especially 
every  Sabbath  school  and  Bible  class  teacher.  It  is  prepared  with  special  reference 
to  this  class  of  persons,  and  contains  amass  of  just  the  kind  of  information  wanted. 

"The  undersigned,  having  examined  Professor  Ripley's  Notes  on  the  Gospels, 
can  recommend  tiiem  with  confidence  to  all  who  need  such  helps  in  the  study  of 
the  sacred  Scriptures.  Tliose  passages  which  all  can  understand  are  left  "  without 
note  or  comment,"  and  the  principal  labor  is  devoted  to  the  explanation  of  such 
parts  as  need  to  be  explained  and  rescued  from  the  perversions  of  errorists,  both 
the  ignorant  and  the  learned.  The  practical  suggestions  at  the  close  of  each  chap- 
ter, are  not  the  least  valuable  portion  of  the  work.  Most  cordially,  for  the  sake  of 
truth  and  righteousness,  do  we  wish  for  these  Notes  a  wide  circulati»n. 

Baron  Stow,  R.  H.  Neale, 

Daniel  ?harp,  J.  W.  Parker, 

"William  Hague,  R.  Turnbull, 

R.  W.  CusHMAN,  N.  Colver." 

"Professor  Ripley  has  given  us  a  specimen  of  the  risht  kind  of  Commentary; 
the  Notes  are  more  strictly  explanatory  than  those  of  Mr.  Barnes;  they  occupy  a 
smaller  space;  the  style,  though  less  pointed  and  vivacious,  exhibits  more  sobriety; 
the  principles  of  interpretation  are  more  cautiously  applied;  and  the  explanations, 
particularly  oa  the  subject  of  baptism,  are  more  correct," — Christian  Review, 

7 


THE  BAPTISMAL  QUESTION; 

Containing  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne's  "Hints  to  an  Enquirer  on  the  subject  of 

Baptism," — a  Review  of  the  "Hints,"  by  Rev.  William  Hague, 

with  a  "  Rejoinder."  by  Cooke  and  Towne,  and 

Mr.  Hague's  Examination  of  the  Rejoinder. 

BAPTISM    ITS    OWN    WITNESS; 

Or,  Reflections  suggested  by  reading  "The  Baptized  Child."    By  Wm.  Hague, 
Pastor  of  Federal  Street  Baptist  Church,  Boston. 

JEWETT    ON    BAPTISM. 

The  Mode  and  Subjects  of  Baptism.     By  Milo  P.  Jewett,  A.  M.,  late  professor 

in  Marietta  College,  and  a  licensed  minister  of  the  Presbyterian  church. 

Sixth  Thousand. 

CHRISTIAN    BAPTISM. 

An  Examination  of  Stuart's  Essay  on  Baptism.     By  Henry  J.  Ripley, 
Professor  in  Newton  Theological  Institution, 

FULLER'S   DIALOGUES  ON   COMMUNION. 

Being  a  candid  and  able  Discussion  of  Strict  and  Mixed  Communion; 

to  which  is  added.  Dr.  Griffin's  Letter  on  the  subject, 

and  a  Review  of  the  same,  by  Prof.  Ripley. 

Second  Edition. 

Those  Christians  who  have  read  the  writings  of  the  celebrated  Mr.  Hall  on  this 
subject,  ought  to  do  themselves  the  justice  to  peruse  these  conversations  by  one  of 
his  church,  the  son  of  the  late  Andrew  Fuller.  The  work  is  written  in  a  manly 
style,  and  did  not  interrupt  the  affection  which  existed  between  Mr  Hall  and  Mr. 
Fuller.  This  relation  between  the  two  writers  gives  much  interest  to  the  publica- 
tion. One  important  trait  in  the  Dialogue  is,  that  Mr  Fuller  meets  Mr.  Hall  ar- 
rayed in  his  own  language.  As  a  controversial  work  it  has  few  rivals,  in  regard 
either  to  Christian  spirit,  or  argumentative  powers.  The  public  are  imder  obliga- 
tions to  the  editor,  Rev.  Peter  Chase,  for  his  notes,  references,  (fee,  which  enhance 
the  value  of  the  American  edition.  Profes.-^or  Ripley's  able  Review  of  Dr.  Griffin's 
letter,  adds  intrinsic  worth  to  the  book,  which  will  ever  remain  a  standard  volume 
on  this  important  subject. 

LIFE    OF    PHILIP   MELANCTHON. 

CO.MPRISING  AN  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  REFORMATION. 
By  F.  A.  Cox,  D.  D. 

"  This  is  a  neat  edition  of  a  work,  which  has  obtained  in  England  a  permanent 
reputation.  The  acquaintance,  which  many  in  this  country  have  formed  with  its 
auihor,  will  induce  them  to  read  the  hook  with  increased  interest.  It  is  well  writ- 
ten, m  a  style,  which,  though  flowing  and  ornate,  is  not  turs-id.  It  shows  all  the 
lear'nins  whicli  is  appropriate  to  the^snbject,  without  an  offensive  display.  The 
facts  concerning  Melancthon  are  detailed  with  clearness,  and  a  lucid  view  is  present- 
ed of  the  principul  personatres  and  events  of  tlie  age.  From  no  other  book,  within 
the  same  compass,  could  a  better  knowledije  of  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  Reform- 
at ion  be  obiained  For  this  reason,  as  well  as  for  the  attractions  which  belong  to 
the  character  of  Melancthon,  the  book  is  valuable."—  Christian  Review. 

8 


MY    PROGRESS    IN    ERROR, 

AND  RECOVERY  TO  TRUTH. 

Or  a  Tour  through  Universalism,  Unitarianism,  and  Skepticism. 
Extract  of  a  letter  from  Prof.  Stuart,  Andover. 
"Gentlemen:— I  have  received  a  copy  of  'My  Progress  in  Error,'  and  read  it 
wiih  attention  and  nuichi  interest.  I  take  the  liberty  to  say,  that  in  my  judgment, 
the  author  of  thai  book  has  written  a  plain  and  unvarnished  account  of  liie  opera- 
tions not  only  of  his  own  mind,  but  of  many  others.  The  author  has  gone  through 
the  whole,  without  personal  abuse  of  any  body,  and  without  any  slanderous 
insinuations.  It  seems  to  me,  that  what  he  has  said  about  the  operations  of  Uni- 
tarian sentiments,  he  has  been  compelled  to  say  by  a  regard  to  truth.  In  fact.  I 
regard  the  book  as  a  remarkable  example  of  prudent  forbearance,  as  to  stigmatiz- 
ing either  opponents  or  their  sentiments.  1  predict  it  will  be  found  fault  wiih, 
and  violently  attacked.  But  in  my  humble  opinicm,  the  reason  of  this  will  be, 
that  the  author  has  drawn  a  true  likeness  of  so  many;  and  when  this  is  held  up  to 
public  view,  it  is  not  a  very  pleasing  portrait.  AAho  likes  to  be  seen  in  a  forbid- 
ding picture?  The  book  will  be  read,  notwithstanding  i.ewspaper  criliri&m  ;  and 
if  I  do  not  miscalculate  greatly,  it  will  aid  much  in  opening  the  eyes  of  the  public, 
as  the  workings  and  evasions  of  a  skeptical  .';])irit.  Bid  the  author  of  it  God  fpe<d. 
"  With  kind  regards,  your  friend  and  obedient  servant,      M.  hiUART.'" 

Opinions  of  the  Press. 

"In  many  of  the  passages  we  almost  fancied  that  the  writer  hsC  teen  sketching 
a  history  of  our  own  '  i)rcTgress  in  error,'  so  true  is  the  history,  and  so  similar  the 
feelings  of  those  who  are  led  away  in  the  morning  of  life,  into  the  dark  and  dreary 
path  of  religious  error.  We  should  be  glad  to  have  this  book  placed  in  the  hards 
of  every  ynung  man  whose  mind  is  unsettled  upon  the  question  of  experimental 
religion,  and  especially  of  those  who  are  tri/ivg  to  believe  the  doctrine  of  Univer- 
salism."—  Ch.  Secretary. 

'■  It  is  -written  in  a  bold  and  comprehensive  style.  We  doubt  not  it  will  find 
numerous  readers  in  the  community,  and  may  serve  as  a  chart  to  guide  others  in 
the  progress  of  life." — American  Traveller. 

"  We  should  be  glad  if  a  copy  of  the  book  could  be  put  into  the  hands  of  every 
one  who  is  disposed  to  cavil  at  the  truth,  and  embrace  error."— J/nY.  Bap.  Rec. 

"  The  author  is  candid  in  his  manner,  and  forcible  in  his  reasonings,  and  at  last 
informs  us  of  his  being  brought  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth."— iV.  11.  Register. 

"  The  anonymous  author  of  this  book  informs  us  that  this  is  not  a  hasty  pro- 
duction, more  than  ten  years  havine  elapsed  since  the  last  leading  event  which  it 
records  transpired  ;  without  his  declaration,  we  might  have  thought  it  written  as 
an  offset  to  Mr.  Brownson's  Charles  Ellwood.  It  is  in  fact  a  religious  novel,  and 
as  such,  is  rather  interesting.  It  was  to  us,  for  we  read  it  through  at  one  sit- 
ting."— Boston  Courier. 

"  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  it  is  admirably  adapted  to  a  wide-spread  circulation, 
and  salutary  influence.  Great  good  will  result  from  the  distribution  of  this 
work." — Boston  Recorder. 


ONESIMUS 


Ok,  the  Apostolic  Direction  to  Christian  Masters,  in  reference  to  their 
Slaves.    By  Evangelicus. 

"We  are  glad  to  see  this  subject  presented  to  the  consideration  of  Christians, 
by  itself,  and  without  any  reference  to  other  questions  that  agitate  the  fiublic 
mind  ;  and  we  are  glad  that  the  writer  has  confined  himself,  in  the  argument,  so 
closely  to  the  law  of  love.  The  Essay  is  written  with  care,  and  in  a  kind  and 
dispassionate  spirit ;  and  although  it  cannot  be  expected  to  unite  the  minds  of  all 
parties,  either  here  or  at  the  South,  it  is  well  calculated  In  promote,  wherever  it 
is  read,  the  author's  object,  as  indicated  in  the  conclusion  of  his  'Introductory 
Observations.'  " — Vermont  Chronicle. 

"It  is  written  in  an  excellent  spirit,  with  close  logic,  and  severe  perspicuity, 
and  is  evidently  from  a  practised  pen." — Zion's  Herald. 

"  Its  whole  spirit  and  tendency  are  the  opposite  of  the  anti-slarery  publications, 
which  have  produced  so  much  evil."— Princeton  Review. 


Babbatl)  0cl)ool  Book©. 

LINCOLN'S   SABBATH   SCHOOL  CLASS   BOOK. 

Comprising  copious  Exercises  on  the  Sacred  Scriptures.    By  E.  Lincoln. 
Revised  and  improved  by  an  eminent  Clergyman  and  a  Superintendent. 

tO^'The  present  edition  has  been  thoroughly  revised  and  enlarged  by  gentlemen 
well  qualified  for  the  tasit  The  book,  in  its  present  shape,  is  one  of  the  cheape&t 
and  most  complete  of  the  kind  now  in  use. 

"Having  examined  your  Sabbath  School  Class  Book,  it  gives  us  pleasure  to 
express  our  satisfiction  with  its  design  and  execution.  The  great  benefit  which  a 
goud  class  book  accomplishes,  consists  in  guiding  the  mind  of  the  scholar  in  the 
study  of  his  lesson,  and  in  suggesting  topics  of  conversation  to  the  teacher.  To 
this  end  we  think  your  work  is  well  adapted,  having  avoided,  in  a  great  degree, 
the  evils  of  extreme  redundance  or  conciseness. 

W.  Hague,  H.  Malcom. 

L.  HoLLEs,  Bakon  Stow. 

E.  Threshkr, 

MALCOM'S    BIBLE    DICTIONARY. 

A  Dictionary  of  the  most  important  Names,  Objects,  and  Terms,  found  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures;  intended  principally  for  Sunday  School  Teachers  and  Bible 
Classes.     By  Howard  Malcom,  A.  M.    Illustrated  by  thirty- 
nine  Engravings  on  Wood,  and  a  Map  of  Palestine. 
From  the  Minutes  of  the  Vermont  State  Convention. 
"Your  Committee  earnestly  recommend  Malcom's  Bible  Dictionary,  the  worth 
of  which  every  lover  of  the  Bible  will  feel,  and  the  low  price  of  which  places  it 
within  the  reach  of  all." 

From  the  Minutes  of  the  Boston  Association. 
"Believing  that  the  advantages  of  Sabbath  School  and  Bible  Class  instruction 
depend  greatly  on  the  intelligence  of  their  teachers,  and  that  the  extended  circu- 
lation of  Malcom's  Bible  Dictionary  would  conduce  to  their  better  qualification, 
Resolved,  That  this  work  be  recommended  to  the  patronage  of  the  friends  of  early 
religious  instruction." 

LINCOLN'S  SCRIPTURE  QUESTIONS. 

With  the  Answer  annexed,  giving,  in  the  language  of  the  Sacred  Volume, 

interesting  portions  of  the  History,  and  a  concise  View  or  the 

Doctrines  and  Duties  exhibited  in  the  Bible. 

Where  Bibles  cannot  be  furnished  to  each  scholar,  the  Scripture  Questions  may 
be  used  with  convenience,  as  the  answers  are  printed. 


HAGUE'S    GUIDE   TO   CONVERSATION 
ON  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Designed  for  the  Use  of  Bible  Classes  and  Sabbath  Schools.    By  Rev.  Wm  Hague. 
Vol.  I,  Matthew,— Vol.  H,  John. 

The  object  of  this  work  is  troo  fold :—\st.  To  facilitate  the  eflTorts  of  the  teach- 
ers in  communicating  instruction  to  their  classes: — 2d.  To  excite  a  spiiit  of 
inquiry  amongst  the  classes  themselves.  To  this  end.  such  qne.'^lions  are  asked 
as  are  adapted  to  lead  the  mind  to  think,  and  only  such  as  the  scholar,  with  the 
Bible  in  his  hand,  may  be  expected  to  answer,  by  the  aid  of  his  own  reflecting 
powers.  The  questions  are  interspersed  with  familiar  remarks,  which  are  designed 
to  convey  to  the  scholar  such  information  as  may  not  be  within  his  reach,  and 
also  to  keep  up  a  continuous  conversation  between  the  teacher  and  the  class. 

10 


THE    SAINT'S    EVERLASTING    REST. 

By  Rev.  Richard  Baxter, 

Prom  Rev.  Dr.  Wayland,  President  of  Broitn  University. 
"I  am  gratified  lo  perceive  thai  you  have  published  a  iiandsome  edition  of  Baxter's 
Saint's  Rest.     Of  the  value  of  the  worlc  Itself,  it  is  superfluous  lo  speak.     It  has 
few  equals  in  any  language.     The  ordinary  copies  are  palpably  beneath  the  value 
of  the  work." 

THE    IMITATION    OF    CHRIST. 

la  Three  Books.    By  Thomas  a  Kempis.    With  an  Introductory  Essay, 

by  Thomas  Chalmers,  of  Glasgow.     A  new  edition, 

edited  by  Rev.  Howard  Malcom. 

This  work  has,  for  three  hundred  years,  been  esteemed  one  of  the  best  practical 
books  in  existence,  and  has  ^^ne  through  a  vast  number  of  editions,  not  only  in 
the  original  Latin,  but  in  every  language  of  Europe.  Dr.  Payson,  of  Portland, 
warmly  recommended  it,  in  a  letter  to  a  young  clergyman.  That  the  benefit  of 
the  work  may  be  universally  enjoyed,  the  translation  of  Payne,  which  best  agrees 
with  the  original,  has  been  revised  by  Rev.  Howard  Malcom,  and  such  retrench- 
ments made,  as  adapt  it  to  general  use. 

JAMES'S  CHURCH-MEMBER'S  GUIDE. 

Edited  by  J.  O.  Choules.    With  an  Introductory  Essay,  by  Rev.  H.  Winslow. 

"The  spontaneous  effusion  of  our  heart,  on  laying  the  book  down,  was, — may 
every  church-member  in  our  land  soon  possess  this  book,  and  be  blessed  with  all 
the  happiness  which  conformity  to  its  evangelic  sentiments  and  directions  is  cal- 
culated lo  confer." — Christian  Secretary. 

THE   BEAUTIES   OF   COLLYER. 

Selections  from  the  Theological  Lectures  of  Rev.  W.  B.  Collyer,  D.  D. 

The  merits  of  Dr.  Collyer  arc  thus  noticed  by  an  eminent  reviewer.  "His  re- 
searches, his  various  learning,  and  accumulation  of  interesting  facts,  his  present- 
ing old  and  familiar  truths  in  a  new  and  striking  manner,  entitle  him  to  rank  high 
as  a  theological  writer.  His  style  is  remarkably  elegant  and  polished,  and  there  is 
a  rich  vein  of  evangelical  pieiy  running  through  all  his  works."  In  making  up 
the  volume  from  so  eminent  an  author,  the  editor  has  selected  those  parts  which 
he  supposed  would  create  habits  of  thought  in  the  Christian  community,  and  pre- 
sent a  volume  well  suited  for  the  Christian  library.  Indeed,  this  book  contains  a 
rich  treasure  of  truth  upm  seventy  subjects,  for  all  classes  of  readers.  It  is  well 
calculated  lo  give  youth  a  taste  for  reading,  as  it  is  to  encourage  the  mature  Chris- 
tian in  his  course  of  duty,  and  to  confirm  his  hopes  of  a  happy  immortality. 

SCRIPTURE    NATURAL    HISTORY. 

Containing  a  descriptive  account  of  Quadrupeds,  Birds,  Fishes,  Insects,  Reptiles, 

Serpents,  Plants,  Trees,  Minerals,  Gems,  and  Precious  Stones,  mentioned 

in  the  Bible.    By  Wm.  Carpenter,  London ;  with  improvements, 

By  Gorham  D.  Abbott.    Illustrated  by  numerous 

engravings,  also,  Sketches  of  Palestine. 

"This  is  a  very  interesting  volume  to  general  readers  of  the  Bible.  Mr.  Abbott 
has  divested  the  work  of  its  learned  refere1ices,and  adapted  it  to  the  comprehension 
of  all.  Mr.  Carpenter  compiled  the  work  from  the  Natural  History  of  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Harris,  of  Dorchester,  Mass.,  and  very  ungenerously  refused  to  acknowledge  his 
obligations  to  the  author,  while  he  abusedhim  for  his  want  of  orthodoxy.  Mr. 
Abbott  has  faithfully  e.xposed  the  piracy.  We  recommend  the  volume  as  one  of 
great  value." — American  (Quarterly  Register. 

TRAVELS  OF  TRUE  GODLINESS. 

By  Rev.  B.  Keach.    A  Memoir  of  his  Life,  by  Howard  Malcom,  A.  M. 
11 


CHRISTIAN  MINIATURE  LIBRARY. 

Elegantly  bound  in  Cloth,  Gilt  Edges. 

THE   BIBLE   AND   THE   CLOSET; 

Or,  how  we  may  read  the  Scriptures  with  the  most  spiritual  profit. 

By  Thomas  Watson;  and  Secret  Prayer  successfully  managed. 

By  Rev.  Samuel  Lee;  ministers  ejected  in  1662. 

Edited  by  Rev  J.  O.  Choules.    With 

a  Recommendatory  Letter. 

By  Re7.  E.  N.  Kirk. 

THE   CASKET   OF   FOUR  JEWELS, 

For  Young  Christians.    Containing  Apollos— Growth  in  Grace— The 
Golden  Censer — and  The  Christian  Citizen. 

THE    MARRIAGE    RING; 

Or,  how  to  make  Home  Happy.    By  Rev.  John  Angell  James. 

"Of  all  the  books  of  this  description,  this  is  one  of  the  best  we  have  seen.  Full 
of  practical  and  intereslinsr  matter  relating  to  the  mutual  duty  of  those  who  are, 
or  intend  to  be,  connected  in  the  marriage  state,  it  cannot  fail  to  be  productive  of 
good.  It  is  neat  and  tastefully  got  up,  and  will  be  a  most  acceptable  present."— 
Bangor  Gazette. 

"It  is  a  good  little  book,  containing  excellent  advice  on  the  subject  of  the  do- 
mestic relations."— ?7.  S.  Gazette,  Philadelphia. 

"A  beautiful  little  work,after  the  neatest  fashion  of  miniature  books."-/S'aZemGaz. 

A  NEW  GUIDE  FOR  EMIGRANTS  TO  THE  WEST. 

By  John  M.  Peck,  of  Illinois. 

"We  earnestly  wish  this  most  excellent  work  was  in  the  hands  of  those  hun- 
dreds of  Emigrants,  who  are  now  about  town,  and  intend  to  go  "West."  The 
advice  and  inft)rmation  contained  in  these  374  pages,  are  really  invaluable,  and  if 
attended  to,  would  save  an  immense  amount  of  lime,  trouble,  and  last,  not  least, 
money.  The  author  may  l)e  depended  upon;  having  had  every  opportunity  for 
gathering  facts  and  knowledge  on  the  subject." 

ESSAY    ON    THE    DIVINITY    OF    CHRIST. 

By  D.  Van  de  Wynpersse,  D.  D. 

CAMPBELL  h  FENELON  ON  ELOQUENCE. 

Campbell's  Lectures  on  Theology  and  Pulpit  Eloquence, 

and  Fenelon's  Dialogues  on  Eloquence. 

Edited  by  Prof.  H.  Ripley. 

tl3=It  has  been  the  aim  of  the  editor  of  this  work  to  make  it  more  fitted  to 
students  in  this  country,  and  more  profitable  to  those  whose  studies  have  not  ex- 
tended beyond  their  own  language.  And  he  considers  that  these  Lectures  inculcate 
the  true  mode  in  which  thesludy  of  theology  should  be  conducted.  The  excellence 
of  Fenelon's  Dialogues  concerning  Eloquence,  their  general  agreement  with  the 
sentiments  of  Dr.  Campbell's  Lectures,  and  their  more  ample  discussion  of  certain 
topics  connected  with  preaching,  render  their  insertion  in  this  volume  quite  ap- 
propriate. These  dialogues  Dr.  Doddridge  has  called  •'  incomparable  dialogues  on 
eloquence,"  which,  he  remarks,  "may  God  put  it  into  the  hearts  of  our  preachers 
often  and  attentively  to  read  "  This  complete  volume  on  eloquence  has  been 
noticed  by  several  periodicals,  and  recommended  to  all  students  who  are  preparing 
for  the  Christian  ministry. 

12 


sit.  j5arn0'0  iDorks. 

Probably  no  writer  of  modern  times  has  so  much  engaged  the  public  mind  as 
Dr.  Harris.  All  his  works  have  been  favorably  received,  extensively  r£viewed 
and  both  the  style  and  spirit  highly  commended.  ' 

THE   GREAT   COMMISSION; 

The  Christian  Church  constituted  and  charged  to  convey  the  Gospel  to  the  World. 

With  an  Introductory  Essay,  by  Rev.  William  R.  Williams,  D.  D. 

Fourth  Thousand. 

THE   GREAT   TEACHER; 

Or,  Characteristics  of  our  Lord's  Ministry.    With  an  introductory  Essay, 

by  Heman  Humphrey,  D.  D. 

Ninth  Thousand. 

MAMMON; 

Or,  Covetousness  the  Sin  of  the  Christian  Church.    A  Prize  Essay. 
Seventh  Thousand. 

UNION; 

Or,  the  Divided  Church  made  One.    Second  Thousand. 

ZEBULON; 

Or,  the  Condition  and  Claims  of  Sailors,    The  Prize  Essay,  written  for  the 

British  and  Foreign  Sailors'    Society.    American  Edition, 

edited  by  Rev.  Wm.  M.  Rogers  and  D.  M.  Lord. 

Third  Thousand. 

THE   WITNESSING   CHURCH; 

32mo,  cloth. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  CITIZEN  ; 

Paper,  gilt  edges. 

THE   GOLDEN   CENSER; 

Or,  a  Visit  to  the  House  of  Prayer. 
Paper,  gilt  edges. 

MEMOIR  OP  ROGER  WILLIAMS, 

The  Founder  of  the  State  of  Rhode  Island.     By  Rev.  James  D.  Knowles. 

"In  perusing  Prof  Knowles's  Memoir  of  Roger  Williams,  the  reader  will  find 
much  of  this  beauty  of  history  to  which  we  have  alluded,  as  combined  with  biog- 
raphy. There  were  many  noble  traits  of  character  in  Mr.  Williams,  whidi  ren- 
dered him  the  object  of  deserved  admiration  ;  such  as  his  eminent  piety,  his  acts 
of  humanity  and  "justice  towards  the  Indians,  his  unbending  integrity  in  principle, 
&c.— but  as  that  for  which  he  is  most  peculiarly  the  object  of  our  admiration,  we 
select  his  unshaken  attachment  to,  and  persevering  vindication  of  entire  liberty  of 
conscience  in  religious  worship.  Mr.  Williams  was  decided  on  this  subject. 
The  Holy  Scriptures  were  the  standard  of  his  belief,  and  the  authority  which  he 
recognized  for  the  regulation  of  his  conscience.  The  task  of  writing  a  memoir  of 
Roger  Williams  was  ~by  no  means  inconsiderable.  Prof  Knowles,  from  a  correct 
apprehension  of  the  principles  ef  religious  liberty,  was  peculiarly  the  man  to  enter 
on  this  labor.  We  are  pleased  thai  he  has  completed  it  in  an  able  manner,  and 
given  as  full  and  correct  a  delineation  of  this  grpat  man  as  could  probably  have 
been  given  by  any  other  author  in  Europe  or  America.  The  volume  is  a  rich 
acquisition  to  the  history  of  our  country,  ranking  high  in  the  catalogue  of  our  best 
works  iu  American  literature."— CAns^mn  Watchman. 
1  13 


Mime  Book0. 

THE     SABBATH     SCHOOL      HARMONY; 

Containing  appropriate  Hymns  and  Music  for  Sabballi  Schools,  Juvenile 
Singing  Schools,  and  Family  Devotion.    By  N.  D.  Gouto. 

From  the  Sabbath  School  Trcasiiry. 
"The  work  before  us  is  got  up  in  a  very  convenient  and  attractive  form.  It 
contains  about  fifty  tunes" and  seventy-five  hymns.  The  music  is  most  of  it 
original,  and  of  that  style  and  character,  which  long  experience  in  teaching,  has 
sali.sfied  the  author  is  best  calculated  to  interest  not  only  children,  but  persons  of 
niaturer  age,  when  learning  to  sing.  The  hymns  appear  to  be  selected  with  pecu- 
liar taste  and  care,  and,  for  Sabbath  School  purposes,  of  such  variety,  as  to  require 
no  other  hymn  book.  We  especially  commend  this  little  work  to  the  notice  of 
Sabbalh  School  teachers,  believing  it  to  be  the  best  work  for  Sabbath  Schools  now 
before  the  public." 

THE    SACRED    MINSTREL; 

A  Collection  of  Church  Music,  consisting  of  Psalm  and  Hymn  Tunes,  Anthems, 

Sentences,  Chants,  &;c.,  selected  from  the  most  popular  productions  of 

nearly  one  hundred  aiffereni  authors  in  this  and  other  countries. 

By.  N.  D.  Gould. 

NATIONAL    CHURCH    HARMONY, 

Containing  Tunes  calculated  for  Public  Worship,  Anthems  and  Select  Pieces  for 

Fasts,  Thanksgivings,  Christmas,  Missionary  Meetings.  &c. 

By  N.  D.  Gould.     New  stereotype  edition. 

WINCHELL'S    WATTS, 

Enlarged,  being  an  arrangement  of  all  the  Psalms  and  Hymns  of  Dr.  Watts. 
With  a:  Supplement. 

HYMNS  FOR  THE  VESTRY  AND  FIRESIDE. 

A  choice  Collection  of  about  four  hundred  hymns,  original  and  selected. 


FEMALE  SCRIPTURE  BIOGRAPHY.  , 

With  an  Essay  on  what  Christianity  has  done  for  Women.    By  Kev.  F.  Cox. 

HELP    TO    ZION'S    TRAVELLERS. 

By  Rev.  Robert  Hall,  with  a  Preface,  by  Dr.  Kylakd. 

Edited  by  Rev.  J.  A.  Warne.  1 

THE    THEATRE.  ^ 

In  its  Influence  upon  Literature,  Morals,  and  Religion.     By  Rev.  R.  Turnbull,  i 

Stcond  Edition,  j 

THE    PRINCIPLE   OF    CHRISTIAN    UNION.  I 

By  William  Hague. 

i 

THE   CHRISTIAN   REVIEW.  \ 

Quarterly.     Edited  by  Rev.  S.  F.  Sbiith.  1 
CO"  A  few  of  the  back  volumes  can  be  had  if  applied  for  soon. 

14  ; 


THE 


MISSIONARY   ENTERPRISE. 

//  has  been  leeM  said,  that  "to  imbue  men  thoroughly  with  the  missionary 
spirit,  we  viust  acquaint  thetn  intimatelij  icith  the  missiotiari/  enterprise."  The 
spirit  of7nissions  seems  every  where  to  be  increasing.  The  circulation  of  printed 
docu7nents,  and  other  like  efforts,  are  giving  a  tteta  impetus  to  the  cause. 

The  folloicing  valuable  works  contain  just  the  kind  uf  information  needed. 
Let  every  one  purchase  and  read  the?n. 


ORIGIN  Ai^D   HISTORY  OF  MISSIONS; 

A  Record  of  the  Voyages,  Travels,  Labors,  and  Successes  of  the  various  Missionaries 

who  have  been  sent  forth  by  Protestant  Societies  to  evangelize  the  Heathen. 

Compiled  from  authentic  Documents. 

FORMING  A  COMPLETE  MISSIONARY  REPOSITORY. 

Illustrated  by  numerous  Engravings,  made  expressly  for  this  work. 

By  Rev.  John  O.  Choules,  A.  M.,  and  Rev.  Thomas  Smith. 

Sixth  Edition,  Enlarged  and  Improved, 

RECOMMENDATIONS. 

Prom  the  Secretary  of  the  Am.  B.  C.  F.  Missions. 
J33=lt  is  the  most  comprehensive,  and  the  best  extant.  It  contains  a  rich  store 
of  authentic  facts,  liigbly  important  both  to  the  minister  and  the  private  Christian, 
To  the  former,  it  will  be  an  invaluable  assistant  in  his  preparations  for  the  monthly 
concert  and  other  missionary  meetings;  and  in  the  family,  it  will  furnish  instruc- 
tive and  useful  employment  to  the  members,  of  different  ages,  in  many  an  hour 
that  otherwise  might  not  be  so  profitably  occupied.  R.  Anderson. 

From  the  Secretaries  of  the  Am.  Bap.  Board  of  Foreign  3Tissions. 
The  History  of  Missions,  as  its  name  denotes,  is  a  narrative  of  the  means  and 
methods  by  which  the  gospel  has  been  propagated  in  pagan  lands,  beginning  with 
the  earliest  efforts  of  the  church,  but  presenting  more  at  large  the  origili  and 

grogress  of  the  principal  missionary  institutions  of  the  last  and  present  centuries, 
eing  derived  from  authentic  sources,  and  fitted,  by  its  happy  selection  of  inci- 
dents, to  cherish  an  intelligent  interest  in  the  subjects  of  which  it  treats,  we  hope 
it  v/ill  secure  an  extensive  circulation.  It  is  worthy  of  a  place  in  every  Christian 
library.  Lucius  Boli.es, 

Solomon  Peck. 

THE  GREAT  COMMISSION. 

Or  the  Christian  Church  constituted  and  charged  to  convey  the  gospel  to  the  world. 

By  Rev.  John  Harris,  D.  D.,  author  of  '  Mammon,' '  Great  Teacher/  &c. 

With  an  Introductory  Essay,  by  William  R.  Williams,  D.  D., 

of  New  York.    Second  Edition.     I2mo.    Cloth. 

9:5"Thi3  work  was  written  in  consequence  of  the  offer  of  a  prize  of  two  hundred 
guineas,  by  several  prominent  individuals  in  Scotland,  for  the  best  essay  on 
''The  duly,  privilege,  and  encouragement  of  Christians  to  send  the  gospel  of 
salvation  to  the  unenli?htened  nations  of  the  earth."  The  adjudicators  (David 
Welsh,  Ralph  Wardlaw',  Henry  Melville,  Jabez  Bunting,  Thomas  S.  Crisp)  stale 
"  that  forty-two  essays  were  received,  and.  afier  much  deliberation,  the  essay  of 
Dr.  Harris  was  phicedjirst.  They  were  influei.ced  'n  their  decision  by  the  senti- 
ment, style,  and  comprehensiveness  of  the  essay,  ana  by  lue  general  adaptatioQ 
to  the  avowed  object  of  the  prize." 

This  work  has  received  the  highest  commendation, 
2  15 


THE 

KAREN  APOSTLE; 

Or,  Memoirof  Ko  Thah-Byu,  1.he  first  Karen  convert,  with  notices  concerning  hia 

Nation.    Witli  maps  and  plates.     By  Rev.  Francis  Mason,  Blissionary. 

American  edition.     Edited  by  Professor  Henry  J.  Ripley, 

of  Newton  Theological  Institution. 

E]3°'This  is  a  work  of  thrilling  interest,  containing  tlie  history  of  a  remarkahle 
man, and  giving,  also,  mucli  information  respecting  the  Karen  Mission,  heretofore 
unknown  in  thfs  country.  It  must  bo  sought  for,  and  read  with  avidity  by  those 
interested  in  this  most  interesting  Mission. 

It  gives  an  account,  which  must  he  attractive  from  its  novelty,  of  apeople  that 
have  been  but  little  known  and  visited  by  missionaries,  till  within  a  few  years. 
The  baptism  of  KoThah  Byu  in  1828,  was  the  beginning  of  the  mission,  and  at 
the  end  of  these  twelve  years,  1270  Karens  are  officially  reported  as  members  of 
the  churches,  in  good  standing.  The  mission  has  been  carried  on  pre-emnienlly 
by  the  Karens  themselves,  and  there  is  no  doubt,  from  much  touching  evidence 
contained  in  this  volume,  that  they  area  people  peculiarly  susceptible  to  religious 
impressions.     The  account  of  Mr.  Mason  must  be  interesting  to  every  one. 

"Perhaps  no  nation,  recently  discovered,  has  attracted  or  deserved  more  general 
interest  than  the  Karen.  All  will  be  delighted  to  read  the  memoirof  one,  who 
united  with  the  common  characteristics  of  his  countrymen,  such  an  extraordinary 
decree  of  zeal,  «if  perseverance,  and  success,  in  the  propagation  of  the  gospel 
which  he  himself  first  received  in  faith  and  in  love." — Baptist  Advocate. 

"It  is  a  valuable  addition  to  the  volumes  now  multiplying,  which  bear  testimony 
to  the  valuable  character  and  results  of  the  missionary  work." — Ch.  Intdligtnctr. 

"This  work  will  be  read  with  interest,  showing,  as  it  does,  the  power  of  the 
gospel  upon  a  degraded  people,  and  the  rich  blessings  it  confers  upon  the  heathen, 
both  as  it  respects  this  life  and  the  life  to  come.  What  can  be  more  interesting 
to  a  Christian  mind,  than  to  see  the  darkness  which,  by  nature,  brc  ods  over  the 
human  mind,  dispelled  by  the  light  of  the  gospel,  and  a  benighted  spirit  guided  to 
a  world  of  eternal  day.  A  striking  instance  of  this,  the  memoir  presents.  It  also 
shows  how  the  gospel  can  raise  up  an  individual  from  the  depths  of  wretchedness 
and  crime,  and  make  him,  though  possessed  of  small  natural  abilities,  a  rich 
blessing  to  his  fellow-men." — Vermont  Chro7dclc. 

"  It  is  an  interesting  little  volume,  and  gives  a  vivid  picture  of  the  influence  of 
the  Christian  religion  in  taming,  subduing,  and  elevating  a  rough  and  darkened 
mind.  The  historical  notices  of  the  Karen  people  we  have  read  with  pleasure." — 
Bangor  Courier. 

"This  volume  abounds  in  that  kind  of  interest  which  belonss  to  personal  mrra- 
tive;  and  the  efTcct  of  good  leaching  upon  '  new  minds,'  is  admirably  illustrated." 
—Phil.  U.  S.  Gaz. 


MEMOIR     OF 

ANN  H.  JUDSON, 

Late  Missionary  to  Burmah,  including  a  history  of  the  American  Baptist  Mission 

in  the  Burman  Empire.    By  Rev.  James  D.  Knowles.    A  new  edition. 

V/itn  a  continuation  of  the  History  down  to  the  present  year. 

Er^-"  We  are  particularly  gratified  to  perceive  a  new  edition  of  the  Memoirs  of 
Mrs.  Judson.  She  was  an  honor  to  our  country — one  of  the  most  noble  spirited 
of  her  sex.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  surprising,  that  so  many  editions,  and  eo 
many  thousand  copies  of  hor  life  and  adventures  have  been  sold.  The  name — the 
long  career  of  s'lffering— the  self-sacrificing  spirit  of  the  retired  country  girl, 
have  opicaa  i>rer  the  whole  world;  and  the  heroism  of  her  aposlleship  and  almost 
martyrdom,  stands  out  a  living  and  heavenly  beacon  fire,  amid  the  dark  midnight 
of  ages,  and  human  history  and  exploits.  She  was  tlie  first  woman  who  resolved 
to  become  a  missionary  to  heathen  countries." 

16 


MEMOIR    OF 

GEORGE  MNA  BOARDMAN, 

Late  Missionary  to  Burmah,  containing  much  intelligence  relative  to  the  Burman 

Mission.    By  Rev.  Alonzo  King.    New  edition.    With  an  Introductory  Essay, 

by  a  distinguished  Clergyman.     Embellished  with  a  Likeness;  a 

beautiful  Vignette,  on  Steel,  representing  the  baptismal 

scene  just  before  his  death;  and  a  drawing  of  his 

Tomb,  taken  by  Rev.  Hovtard  Malcom. 

1X3^1 11  noticing  the  lamented  death  of  Mr.  Boardman.Mr.  Judsonjn  one  of  hia 
letters,  thus  speaks  of  his  late  worthy  co-worker  on  the  fields  of  Burmah: 

"One  of  the  brightest  luminaries  of  Burmah  is  extinguished, — dear  brother 
Boardman  is  gone  to  his  eternal  rest.  He  fell  gloriously  at  the  head  of  his  troops, 
in  the  arms  of  victory, — thirty-eight  wild  Karens  having  been  brought  into  the 
camp  of  king  Jesus  since  the  beginning  of  the  year,  besides  the  thirty-two  that 
were  brought  in  during  the  two  preceding  years.  Disabled  by  wounds,  he  waa 
obliged,  through  the  whole  last  expedition,  to  be  carried  on  a  litter;  but  his 
presence  was  a  host,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  accompanied  his  dying  whispers  with 
almighty  influence.  Such  a  death,  next  to  that  of  martyrdom,  must  be  glorious 
in  the  eyes  of  heaven.  Well  may  he  rest,  assured,  that  a  triumphal  crown  awaits 
him  on  the  grrat  day,  and  '  Well  done,  good  anu  faithful  Boardman,  enter  thou 
into  the  joy  of  thy  Lord." 

From  Rev.  Baron  Stoio. 

No  one  can  read  the  Memoir  of  Boardman,  without  feeling  that  the  religion  of 
Christ  is  suited  to  purify  the  affections  exalt  the  purposes,  and  give  energy  to  the 
character.  Mr.  Boardman  was  a  man  of  rare  excellence,  and  his  biographer,  by  a 
just  exhibition  of  that  excellence,  has  rendered  an  important  service,  not  only  to 
the  cause  of  Christian  missions,  but  to  the  interest  of  personal  godliness. 

Baron  Stow. 

MALCOM^S  TRAVELS 

IN  SOUTH-EASTERN  ASIA. 

embracing  Hindustan,  Malaya,  Siam,  and  China;  with  notices  of  numerous 

missionary  stations;  and  a  full  account  of  the  Burman  Empire; 

with  Dissertations,  Tables,  &c.    In  two  volumes, 

beautifully  illustrated.     Sixth  edition. 

By  Howard  Malcom. 

MEMOIR     OF 

WILLIAM  CAREY,  D.  D. 

FORTY    YEARS    MISSIONARY    IN    INDIA. 

By  Eustace  Carey.    With  an  Introductory  E.ssay,  by  Francis  Wayland,  D.  D. 

With  a  Likeness. 

During  the  forty  years  which  Dr.  Carev  labored  in  the  missionary  cause,  he  was 
instrumental  in  the  publication  of  212. OCX)  volumes  of  the  Scnptures  in  forty 
different  languases,  embracing  the  vernacular  tongues  of  at  least  27,000,000  ?f  the 
human  race,  besides  performing  other  labors,  the  enumeration  of  which  woulu 
seem  almost  incredible. 

17 


THE    PSALMIST, 

A  New  Collection  of  Hymns,  for  llie  use  of  the    Baptist    Churche3. 
By  Baron  Stow  and  S.  F.  Smith. 

This  work  contains  about  twelve  hundred  Hymns,  original  ana  selected;  with 
words  for  select  music,  and  a  few  pages  of  chanl3  at  the  end. 

All  of  Watts's  Hymns,  possessing  lyrical  spirit,  and  suited  to  the  worship  of  a 
Christian  assembly,  are  inserted;  andalarge  numberof  hymns  heretofore  unknown 
in  this  country  have  been  introduced.  The  distinction  of  psalms  and  hymns,  usu- 
ally made  in  other  collections,  has  been  avoided  in  this,  and  all  have  been  arranged 
together,  under  their  appropriate  heads,  and  numbered  in  regular,  unbroken  suc- 
cession. 

The  Chants,  and  Selections  for  Chanting.— since  the  practice  of  chanting 
is  becoming  so  general, — must  be  found  a  very  convenient  and  valuable  appendage 
to  the  work. 

The  acknowledged  ability  of  the  editors  for  the  task;  the  length  of  time  occupied 
in  making  the  compilation;  the  uncommon  facilities  enjoyed,  of  drawing  from  the 
best  sources  in  this  and  other  countries;  the  new,  convenient, and  systematic  plan 
of  arrangement  adopted;  the  quality  and  style  of  getting  up,  A;c.  &c.  give  the 
publishers  confidence  in  the  belief,  that  it  is  a  work  of  far  superior  merit  to  any 
collection  now  before  the  public. 

The  price,  for  the  18mo  size,  strongly  bound  in  sheep,  is  75  cents,  and  the  pocket 
edition  62^  cents.  A  liberal  discount  will  be  made,  where  a  numberof  copies  are 
purchased  at  one  lime. 

Copies  furnished  gratis  to  those  wishing  to  examine  the  work  with  a  view  to  its 
introduction. 

ANTIOCH: 

Or,  Increase  of  Moral  Power  in  the  Church  of  Clirist.    By  Rev.  Pharcellus 
Church.    "With  an  Introductory  Essay,  by  Rev.  Bakon  Stow. 

D3="Here  is  a  volume  which  will  make  a  greater  stir  than  any  didactic  work 
that  has  been  issued  for  many  a  day.  It  is  a  book  of  close  and  consecutive  thought, 
and  treats  of  subjects  which  are  of  the  deepest  interest,  at  the  present  time,  to  tlie 
churches  of  this  country. 

"The  author  is  favorably  known  to  the  religious  public,  as  an  original  thinker, 
and  a  forcible  writer, — his  style  is  lucid  and  vigorous.  The  Introduction,  by  Mr. 
Stow,  adds  much  to  the  value  and  attractions  of  the  volume." — Chr.  Rcjiector. 

"  By  some  this  book  will  be  condemned,  by  many  it  will  be  read  with  pleasure, 
because  it  analyzes  and  renders  tangilile,  principles  tliat  have  lieen  vaguely  con- 
ceived in  many  minds,  reluctantly  promulgated  and  hesitatingly  believed.  We 
advise  our  brethren  to  read  the  book,  and  judge  for  them.selves." — Bap.  Record. 

"It  is  the  work  of  an  original  thinker,  on  a  subject  of  great  practical  interest  to 
the  church.  It  is  replete  with  suggestions,  wliich,  in  our  view,  are  eminently 
worthy  of  consideration." — Philadelphia  Christian  Observer. 

"This  is  a  philosophical  essay,  denoting  depth  of  thinking,  and  great  originality, 
*  *  *  *  He  does  not  doubt,  but  asserts,  and  carries  along  the  matter  with  his 
argument,  until  the  difference  of  opinion  with  wliich  the  reader  started  with  the 
writer  is  forgotten  by  the  former,  in  admiration  of  the  warmth  and  truthfulness  of 
the  latter."— P/ii7.  U.  S.  Gazette. 


PENTECOST 


OR  THE  SOLE  EFFICIENCY  OF  CONVERTING  THE  WORLD. 
By  Rev.  Pharcellus  Church,  author  of  "  Antioch." 

Contents — Evangelical  Enterprise — Scale  on  which  to  graduate  Man's  Efficiency 
in  it.  Part  1.  Nature  of  the  Energy  which  the  Believer  i.s  to  expect  from  Chris-t. 
Part  2.  The  Forms  under  which  this  Heavenly  Energy  manifests  itself.  Pari  3. 
Means  of  securing  enlarged  Measures  of  this  Energy  upon  ourselves. 

"One  desire  in  the  writer  predominates  over  all  others;  that  Christians,  gener- 
ally, may  rise  to  a  just  appreciation  of  the  unspeakaljle  blessings  treasured  up  for 
them  in  Christ;  that  all  men  may  see  the  riches  of  the  glory  of  his  inheritance  ia 
the  saints." 

18 


DATE  DUE 


HifiHSMrm     *.i-ia2: 


